
'/■ 



V <^^'^ifB 









■\* / *<■ 




>^% 



':■ .^. 




v-' ' 














STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 



*) / f 



HEARING 



BEFORE THE 



U.S. Co-.vo.v^-^. Wcyj^f" 

COMMITTEE ON THE TERRITORIES 



OF THE 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 



January W, WOi.. a - ]'-^b . \ 3 , ^ 3 o 4 3 



WASHINGTOlSr: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 

. 1904. 



Q.>eH^ 



i^\'':r 



(/ 



y Q 
i 

H STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 



CT Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C, January W^ 190 Jf,. 
The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward L. Hamilton 
in the chair. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, the committee meeting has been called 
this morning' for the the purpose of hearing gentlemen on the question 
of the admission of Oklahoma as a State. We will now hear Mr. 
Clarke. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SIDNEY CLAEKE, OF OKLAHOMA CITY. 

OKLA. 

Mr. Clarke. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the 
story of Oklahoma is so well understood by the country that it seems 
almost superfluous to occup}^ the time of this committee by restating 
it here. But in asking you to favorably report to the House and 
secure its passage the enabling act introduced by Mr. McGuire, 
providing for the admission of Oklahoma into the Union as a State, 
we desire to make a careful and conservative record which will 
abundantly justify the willing support of every member of the 
House. In ail its essential provisions, the bill is a.n exact copy of 
that part of the omnibus bill relating to Oklahoma which received 
the unanimous approval of this committee in the last Congress. 
I desire to sa}^ in the first place, that I am not here to make an}^ idle 
boasts in regard to Oklahoma, but as I have resided in that Territory 
since the opening of the country to settlement in X889, and have had 
something to do with its affairs, I confess to you, gentlemen of the 
committee, that I feel, in common with all Oklahomans, a pride that I 
can not express in words at the marvelous drama in American civiliza- 
tion that has been enacted there. I have often said, and I repeat it 
here, that the development of Oklahoma and the rapid increase in its 
wealth and population in so short a period of tim.e has been more of a 
surprise to the earh^ settlers of the Territory than to the country at 
large. The world never saw the like before, and it will never see it 
again. It will be for all time a significent object lesson in our national 
history, illustrating the energy and enterprise of the American people 
in building a new commonwealth. 

The first settlement in Oklahoma was made on the 22d of April, 
1889. On May 2, 1890, a Territorial government was established by 
Congress. All that part of the Indian country west of the Five Civil- 
ized Tribes was included within the boundaries of the nevv^ Territory, 
and Oklahoma commenced its remarkable career as a separate political 
entit}" among the geographical subdivisions of the United States. In 

3 



4 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

the same organic act, the country of the Five Tribes, embracing an 
area nearh^ as large as the State of Indiana, and larger than any one 
of nine States now in the Union, was designated as the Indian Terri- 
tory-, but without the establishment of a Territorial government. The 
reason for this was found in the treaties between the United States 
and the Indians, which provided at that time that the countrv they 
occupied should never be included within the limits of an}- Territory 
or State. More than this, the whole body of the land was held by the 
Indians by a fee simple title, as most of it is held now, and no basis 
existed for a system of taxation on which a local government could 
safely rest. Thus it was that two new Territories were marked out 
on the map of the United States. 

The Territory of Oklahoma contains 39,030 square miles, or 
24,979,200 acres, corresponding in area to the State of Ohio. There 
are 12 States in the Union of less area, and by the last census 15 States 
of Jess population than the present population of the Territoiy. The 
average area of the States east of the Mississippi River is 33,910 square 
miles. As I have alread}- said, the rapid increase of the population of 
Oklahoma has no parallel in the history of the world. In 1890, one 
3-ear after the first settlement, the population by the Federal census 
was only 61,834. In 1900 the Federal enumeration was 398,331, an 
increase in ten years of 544.2 per cent. B}^ the same census the num- 
ber of persons of voting age was 109,191, and of school age, 147,656. 
In the nearly four 3- ears that have elapsed since June, 1900, the increase 
of population has been more rapid than ever before. I call the atten- 
tion of the committee to the table on page 6 of the governor's report, 
showing the increase of population from 1890 to January, 1902. There 
can be no doubt but what our population at this time is not less than 
650,000. This number exceeds the population of each of the following 
States, as shown b}- the Federal census of 1890: Colorado, Delaware, 
Florida, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, 
Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, 
and W^^oming. 

In this connection it is pertinent to recall the policy of Congress in 
the past relating to the admission of Territories as States. What has 
been the population required heretofore to entitle a Territory to state- 
hood? The following table, showing the date of admission of each 
State, the population by the census previous to admission, and the 
population b}- the following census, conclusivel}- answers this question: 



state. 


Date of 
admission. 


Population 
by census 
next pre- 
vious to 

admission. 


Population 
by follow- 
ing census. 


Vermont 


Mar. 4, 1791 


85. 425 


154, 465 


Kentucky 


June 1,1792 j 73,667 
June 1,1796 i P.5. 691 


220, 955 


Tennessee 


105, 602 


Ohio 


Nov. 29,1802 
Apr. 30,1812 
Dec. 11,1816 
Dec. 10,1817 
Dec. 14,1819 
Dec. 3,1818 


45,365 
76, 556 
24, 188 


230, 760 


Louisiana . 


152, 923 


Indiana 


146, 388 




75,448 
' 127,901 


Alabama 


40,352 
12.'>9'> 




55, 162 
298,532 
140, 455 


Maine ... 


Mar. 15,1820 1 298.865 




Aug. 10,1821 
June 15, 1836 
Jan. 26,1837 
Mar. 3,1845 
Dec. 29,1845 


66, 557 
30, 388 
31, 679 
54, 477 


Arkansas . . . . 


97, 574 


Michigan 


212,267 

87,445 


Florida 


Texas 


212,592 
192, 214 


Iowa 


Dec. 28,1846 


43, 112 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 



State. 



Date of 
admission. 



Population 
by census 
next pre- 
vious to 
admission. 



Population 
by follow- 
ing census. 



Wisconsin 

California 

Minnesota 

Oregon 

Kansas 

West Virginia 

Nevada 

Nebraska 

Colorado 

North Dakota 
South Dakota 
Washington . . 

Idaho 

Wyoming 



May 29,1848 
Sept. 9,1850 
May 11, 1858 
Feb. 14, 1859 
Jan. 29,1861 
June 19, 1863 
Oct. 31,1864 
Mar. 1,1867 
Aug. 1,1876 
Nov. 2,1889 

do. 

Nov. 11, 1889 
July 3,1890 
July 11,1890 



30, 945 

101, 597 

6,077 

13, 294 
107, 017 



6,857 
28, 778 
39, 677 
36, 909 
98, 268 
75, 116 
32,610 
20, 789 



305, 391 
327, 263 
169, 654 

52,288 
363, 485 
442, 013 

39, 316 
122, 906 
194, 327 
182,496 
328, 808 
349, 390 

84. 219 

60, 700 



It will be seen by the foregoing table that among the States admit- 
ted into the Union since 1790, 16 States had less than 50,000 popula- 
tion by the census previous to admission, 6 States less than 100,000, 
and that only 3 had a population of over 100,000, B}^ the census fol- 
lowing admission, 8 States had less than 100,000 population, 11 less 
than 200,000, •! less than 275,000, and wdth the exception of West Vir- 
ginia no State had a population in excess of 350,000. 

The combined population of Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota, Vermont, 
and Indiana, at the census following their admission was not equal to 
the population Oklahoma now has. 

At the election of 1902 the total vote of Oklahoma was 91:,210. If 
gentlemen of the committee will refer to the returns of the last State 
and Congressional elections you will find that in 18 States less votes 
were cast than in Oklahoma. Of these States 12 were Northern and 
6 Southern. The following table gives the total vote of Oklahoma, 
and of the 18 States in each of which a less number of votes were cast: 



Total vote of States. 

Oklahoma 94, 210 

Alabama 92, 184 

Delaware 38, 285 

Florida 39, 652 

Georgia 87, 314 

Idaho 61,544 

Louisiana 67, 904 

Mississippi 59, 103 

Montana 63,641 

Nevada 11,310 

New Hampshire 78, 694 

North Dakota 50, 396 

Oregon 90,698 

Rhode Island 63, 642 

South Carolina 50, 812 

South Dakota 74, 647 

Utah 93,180 

Vermont 69, 935 

Wyoming 25, 052 

It is evident, therefore, that no legitimate objections can be made 
to conferring the inalienable right of self-government upon the 650,- 
000 population now residing within the present boundaries of Okla- 
homa, so far as population is concerned. 



6 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

If other reasons are needed why we are now abundantly qualified 
for independent statehood, they are readil}^^ apparent in the enormous 
resources of Oklahoma — developed and undeveloped — which appear 
on every hand. Not less than 3,000 miles of railroad are now in oper- 
ation, permeating all of the 26 counties in the Territory and connecting 
with the great trunk lines of all the surrounding States. More miles 
of railroad were constructed in Oklahoma last year than in an}^ State 
or Territoiy. Many other roads are projected and under construc- 
tion, and it can be safely said that no section of the United States will 
be better provided with transportation facilities than the State of 
Oklahoma. Unlike the States north of us and of the Middle West, 
our cereal products, and our cotton and live stock, are within easy 
reach of Galveston and New Orleans, the chief exporting ports of the 
Gulf coast, from which they can be sent to the markets of the world. 

When it is remembered that in 1903 the wheat crop of Oklahoma 
was over 36,000,000 bushels, the corn crop 65,000,000 bushels, and 
that our cotton crop was more than 200,000 bales, and that our live 
stock numbers 1,674,276, of which 1,036,662 are cattle, 301,713 horses 
231,218 sheep, 63,452 mules, as returned for taxation, and that over 
35,000 carloads of our products were shipped out of the Territor}^ and 
27,000 carloads of freight shipped in, the magnitude of our trade will 
be f ally comprehended. 

There are in the Territory 280 grain elevators and 6Q flouring mills, 
sending to market over 10,000 barrels of flour per da}^ There are 232 
cotton gins now in operation, and up to December 12, 1903, 155,212 
bales had been ginned. 

The banking facilities of Oklahoma are far superior to those in many 
of the States. There are 79 national banks and 217 Territorial banks, 
with combined deposits on the first da,j of Januar3% 1901, of $22,456,510. 
I submit for the information of the committee the consolidated report 
of all banks of the Territory, both national and Territorial, b}' the 
bank examiner, showing the resources and liabilities: 

EESOUECES, 

Loans and discounts ^15, 481, 253. 09 

Overdrafts 1, 853, 877. 35 

Bonds and securities 1, 135, 853. 03 

United States bonds to secure circulation 1, 382, 550, 00 

United States bonds to secure United States deposits 330, 000. 00 

United States bonds on hand 2, 290. 00 

Premium on United States bonds 138, 147. 19 

Due from banks 6, 987, 234. 82 

Banking house furniture and fixtures 1, 089, 715. 85 

Other real estate and mortgages 96, 527. 50 

Cash 2, 414, 518. 00 

Exchanges for clearing house checks and items 506, 609. 75 

Five per cent redemption fund 67, 915. 00 

Due from United States Treasurer 2, 163. 00 

Total 31, 488, 654. 58 

LIABILITIES. 

Capital stock 5, 511, 700. 00 

Surplus 572, 241. 43 

Undivided profits 999, 386. 31 

Circulation 1, 372, 687. 50 

Due to banks 2, 297, 248. 56 

Individual deposits 18, 851, 810. 17 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. Y 

All other deposits and cashiers' checks $1, 307, 451. 53 

Bills payable 404,119.13 

Bills rediscounted 160, 833. 64 

All other liabilities 11,176.31 

Total 31,488,654.58 

Total deposits in all banks in Oklahoma 22, 456, 510. 26 

The valuation of property in Oklahoma for the purpose of taxation 
is rated at less than one-fourth of its actual value. For 1903 the total 
valuation was ^84,134:, 472. Under our Territorial system, as in many 
of the States, the larger proportion of personal property escapes taxa- 
tion. There is no doubt but what the real wealth of the Territory is 
in excess of $400,000,000, and that at the present rate of increase it 
will reach $425,000,000 before statehood would be finally secured 
under the provisions of an enabling act passed by the present 
Congress. 

There are 250 weekly newspapers, 28 daily papers, and a large num- 
ber of monthly and semimonthly publications published in the Terri- 
tory, representing every phase of our political, social, religious, 
educational, and industrial life. We have 2,192 district schoolhouses, 
and 180,000 school children enrolled, and 191,433 children of school 
age. Nearly 3,000 students are attending the universit}^ Agricultural 
and Mechanical College, and normal schools, while the denominational 
colleges and private educational institutions are numerously attended. 
The common school system and the high school system are the pride 
and glor}^ of all the people. They are not equalled by an}^ State in the 
Union. Oklahoma is essentially American. The percentage of foreign 
born is only 3.5 per cent and of illiteracy 5.9 per cent. 

By the provisions of the organic act creating the Territory of Okla- 
homa, and by sundry acts of Congress opening various Indian reserva- 
tions to settlement, 2,055,500 acres of land have been reserved for the 
future State for the benefit of common schools, colleges, normal 
schools, public buildings, and for charitable and penal institutions. 
At the present time the income from these lands under the rental sys- 
tem authorized b}^ Congress is more than $1,000 per da}^ If pru- 
dentl}^ managed in the future by the State authorities the lands will 
largely increase in value, producing a 3^early income that will greatly 
reduce the rate of taxation for all the purposes for which the lands 
have been reserved. 

Such, briefly stated, are some of the conditions existing in Okla- 
homa at this time. Marvelous as this development has been, the nat- 
ural resources of the Territory have been scarcely touched. The vast 
possibilities of the future are no idle dream. It is alread}^ demon- 
strated that the salt, gypsum, oil, natural gas, and coal deposits are 
unusually abundant. The salt and gypsum beds cover thousands of 
acres, and the suppl}^ is so ple-ntiful that the}^ can never be exhausted. 
Oil, coal, and gas are being found in many sections, while the mineral 
deposits in the Wichita Mountains promise profitable results. 

It has been said b}^ some unacquainted with our situation, and by 
some local politicians for local and political reasons, that Oklahoma has 
reached the zenith of its development. This statement has no founda- 
tion in fact. That the wealth and population of to-da}^ will be doubled 
in the next decade must be apparent to all who are conversant with 
the trend of aii'airs in that section of country. Oklahoma lies directl}^ 



8 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

in the path of empire which is marching on to the great Southwest 
with irresistible force. With no more continental Territories to 
organize, immigration no longer follows the lines of latitude. The 
Southwest is now the favored section for the changing population of 
the States, and Oklahoma is the central point where the home seeker 
finds a home, and where the invester of capital under a State govern- 
ment will find a sure and profitable return. 

It can be safely asserted, therefore, that Oklahoma, in accomplished 
results and in her future possibilities, has all the qualifications to enter 
the Union without further delay and without reference to the Indian 
Territory. Her metropolitan citizenship, gathered from all the States, 
with her advanced civilization and irresistible progress, sweep away 
any possible objection to immediate emancipation from territorial 
rule. Governor Ferguson, in his recent report to the Secretary of 
the Interior, well ssljs: 

Oklahoma is entitled to statehood — entitled to it now. There are in the Terri- 
tory 650,000 intelligent American citizens Avho are deprived of the right of self- 
government. A conservative estimate of the wealth of Oklahoma places it at 
$400,000,000. There are seven educational institutions of higher learning under the 
control of the Territorj^ besides numerous high schools and colleges under the control 
of religious denominations. Our people are in everj^ respect entitled to that which 
is dear to the heart of every progressive American — the right to govern themselves. 

Against this proposition there can be no logical objection. Oklahoma has the 
intellect, the wealth, the moral force, the energy, the natural resources, the develop- 
ment already achieved, and the promise of a splendid future sufficient to justly entitle 
her to careful consideration and Congressional action. No logical reason can be 
urged against her early admission into the sisterhood of States. 

This succinct statement of the governor in behalf of self-government 
will be commended b}^ a vast majority of the people of the Territory. 

In commenting upon the report, the Daily Oklahoman, a paper of 
opposite political faith, declares in a leading editorial: 

Oklahomans are so accmstomed to evidences of remarkable growth that arrays of 
astounding figures showing the development of the Territory have long since ceased 
to excite more than passing notice and are looked upon as a matter of course, but the 
outside world, which travels at a much slower pace, can readily see and can hardly 
fail to contemplate the showing made after fourteen years' development with less 
than genuine amazement. It is one which must necessarily impress them with the 
thrift of our people, the richness of our resources, and fertility of our soil. 

But this showing, magnificent as it is, is not the result of fourteen years' develop- 
ment of the whole area embraced in the present Territorial limits. On the contrary, 
it lacks very much of it; but about one-eighth of the area of to-day has been under 
development during this period. The great bulk of the Territory's area has been 
opened to settlement in the past ten years, and it would be much nearer the truth 
to say that the achievements of to-day are the reward of ten years' effort rather than 
fourteen. 

No Territory and no people in the history of the American Republic ever set a 
pace of progress commensurate with ours. From a handful of plucky, determined 
* ' boomers, ' ' many of whose limited fortunes were exhausted in the contention incident 
to the opening of the lands to settlement, we have grown in a decade to the propor- 
tions of a full-grown State with a population in excess of more than a dozen of the 
States of the Union and more taxable wealth than a score. Oklahoma has a right 
to be proud of her record. It is one which no State can equal, and which would 
be possible in no other section of the country. 

But in spite of the proud position of Oklahoma, her large popula- 
tion and great wealth, possessing all the elements of a magnificent 
commonwealth, it may be claimed before this Committee, as it is 
claimed by a small minority in Oklahoma, that we should be kept out 
of the Union until the anomalous conditions that exist in the Indian 
Territory are finally composed, and that Territory joined with Okla- 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. \j 

homa in a single State. In other words, 650,000 people in Oklahoma, 
rapidly inceasing- in numbers, must be denied the sacred rights of 
self-government for an indefinite time because an unorganized Indian 
country is not ready for statehood. Let me say here that at least 90 
per cent of the people of Oklahoma earnestly ask, as they have the 
right to ask under all the precedents relating to the admission of 
States since the foundation of the Government, that the pending bill 
be passed by this Congress, without infringing upon any right that 
properly belongs to the people of the Indian Territory, or in any way 
limiting the authority of Congress to do in the future what may seem 
best for that Territory. In view of the fact that the Constitution of 
the United States provides that the boundaries of a State shall not be 
changed without the consent of both the State and of the United 
States, the following provision has been inserted in the pending bill: 

That the constitutional convention provided for herein shall, by ordinance irrev- 
ocable, express the consent of the State of Oklahoma that Congress may at any- 
time, or from time to time, attach all or any part of the Indian Territory to the State 
of Oklahoma after the title to said lands in said Indian Territory is extinguished in 
the tribes now claiming the same, and the same assigned in severalty and subject to 
taxation. 

This leaves Congress entirety free to exercise its best judgment 
when the proper time comes to deal with the Indian Territory on the 
statehood question. What the future of that country will be when 
that vast estate is finally settled by the executive branch of the Gov- 
ernment, and the unfortunate conditions which exist find a remed}^ by 
proper legislation, it is impossible now to foresee or to correctly 
decide. 

Let me say also that the people of Oklahoma have no ill feeling 
towards the people of the Indian Territory. We are not responsible 
for their misfortunes. We would be glad to see them protected by a 
Territorial government, preparatory to a State government, when the 
title to the land is finall}^ settled and an equal basis of taxation pro- 
vided. When that time comes, in the spirit of our republican system, 
the will of the majority of the people ought to be consulted as to the 
form of statehood they ma}^ desire. 

It must be apparent to all that if the two Territories were to be 
united it should be on equal terms, and that the interests of the one 
should not be sacrificed to the interests of the other. Oklahoma, as I 
think I have conclusively shown, in her established institutions, intelli- 
gent and orderly government, and in all that is necessary to make a 
great and prosperous State, has established an individuality to which 
she is justly entitled. All of her 1400,000,000 of property she has 
created for herself. Until the Indian Territor}^ has accomplished the 
same results, or Congress has stepped in and equalized the conditions 
in man}^ particulars, there can be no equal partnership — no peaceful 
union based upon equity and justice. 

I have lived on the borders of the Indian Territory for many years, 
and have been so situated in public and private life that I have neces- 
sarily been familiar with its history and conditions. Whatever may 
be the will of Congress hereafter, I believe it would be best for all 
concerned to provide a territorial government for that Territor}' , with 
statehood to follow at the proper time. 

The objections to the immediate single statehood policy as outlined 
by its local advocates are numerous, and to my mind absolutely con- 
clusive. 



10 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

In the first place, the agreements between the United States and the 
Five Tribes provide that the tribal governments shall continue mi til 
the 4th of March, 1906, and it is well understood that said agreements 
can not be violated without national dishonor. 

There are in the Indian Territory 85,000 members of the Indian 
tribes. The negro population noted in the last census is 36,000. The 
Indians are unanimous in protesting against a union with Oklahoma. 
They desire the creation of a separate State when their connection 
with the Government is finally terminated. With customs and habits 
entirely foreign to those of the people of Oklahoma, the assimilation 
of so large a number of tribal population into the bod}^ politic of a 
new State and in the formation of its constitution would be highly 
objectionable in many particulars. 

The Indian Territory is not in a condition, and will not be for several 
years, to bear its just proportion of taxes for the support of a State 
government in connection with Oklahoma. The allotments of land to 
the Indians for homesteads are not subject to taxation for an}^ purpose 
for twenty-five j^ears. The exemption of such a large proportion of 
real property from taxation for the support of a State government 
and for the purposes for which taxation would be required in main- 
taining necessary State institutions, would be gross injustice to the 
taxpayers of that part of the single State now comprising the Terri- 
tory of Oklahoma. 

The character of the population and the general conditions existing 
in the two Territories at this time are so dissimilar that peace and 
prosperity in single statehood would be seriously imperiled by racial 
prejudices, sectional ill-feeling and geographical strife. A large per 
cent of the people in the Indian Territor}^ are situated wholly unlike 
the people of Oklahoma. In the former Territory there is no common 
school sj^stem, and more than 150,000 children are without schools of 
anj^ kind. 

The Muscogee Phoenix, one of the leading papers in the Territor}^, 
places the number at 200,000 and says: 

They' are growing up in ignorance for the want of a school system, and in the 
absence of better teaching are taking Belle Star, Bill^Dalton, Sam Bass, Cherokee 
Bill, and Jesse James as their models in life. 

In the same editorial the editor further says: 

Here in the heart of the United States more than half a million people, apparently 
forgotten by God and man, are struggling!against these things from which a ci\iliza- 
•tion should hide its face in shame. 

Twenty per cent of the entire population are illiterate, as reported 
by the census of 1900. In Oklahoma only 6.9 per cent of the voters 
are illiterate, while in the Indian Territory the number of illiterate 
persons, voting age, is 15.9 per cent. With no school S3^stem in the 
Territory, no schoolhouses, no school funds, and impossible to estab- 
lish an equal system of taxation because of the exempted Indian allot- 
ments, it would be unjust to the educational interests of Oklahoma to 
be forced into an unequal union, as proposed by the advocates of 
immediate single statehood. There are no public lands in the Indian 
Territory to be reserved for common schools, for higher institutions 
of learning, for charitable and penal institutions, or for public build- 
ings. On the contrary, the public lands held in reservation in Okla- 
homa are sacredly pledged by Congressional legislation to the State of 
Oklahoma when it enters the Union as bounded b}^ the organic act. 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 11 

To be required to divide this patrimon}^ with the Indian Territory, as 
proposed by the immediate single statehood advocates, would be an 
appalling injustice not only to the 191,000 school children now in 
Oklahoma but to the unborn generations of the future. 

The claim has been made in Oklahoma in behalf of single statehood 
that the coal and asphalt lands in the Indian Territor}^ can be appro- 
priated by Congress for a school fund, and for other public purposes, 
of equal value of the lands already pledged to Oklahoma. This claim 
is without any foundation whatever. The agreements with the Indians 
provide as follows: 

The proceeds arising from the sale of coal and asphalt lands, and coal and asphalt 
deposits, shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of said 
tribes and paid out per capita with the other moneys belonging to said tribes in the 
manner provided by law. 

Nothing but a direct appropriation of mone}^ by Congress, equal in 
amount to the value of the lands reserved for Oklahoma, would place 
the two Territories on an equal basis so far as the public schools, nor- 
mal schools, colleges, public buildings, and penal and charitable insti- 
tutions are concerned. 

If we turn to the criminal records of the Indian Territory courts, 
and the cost of said courts, the people of Oklahoma, and all good citi- 
zens in the adjacent States, may well be alarmed. During the fiscal 
3^ear ending June 30, 1903, $630,872 was expended by the United 
States for the suppression of crime and other court expenses. This 
was an increase of nearly $150,000 over the previous j^ear. Prisoners 
are sent to -the penitentiaries in the States b}" the carload, and the 
jails in the several court districts are constantl}" filled with many hun- 
dreds of the criminal classes, and many criminals are not prosecuted 
because of the insufiicienc}^ of the number of courts and jails. The 
Attorne3^-General reports that the number of criminal suits terminated 
during the fiscal year was 2,767, and that the number pending on July 
1, 1903, was 3,276. At the same date 558 convicts from the Indian 
Territory were in prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kans., at Atlanta, Ga., 
Booneville, Mo., in the District of Columbia, and in the Ohio Peni- 
tentiary. In the absence of schools, and of the machinery of civil 
government, in the Indian Territory, as ever}^ where else, ignorance 
and crime go hand in hand. Such a condition of affairs is not a part- 
nership to be desired by the intelligent and orderly people of Okla- 
homa, at least until these deplorable conditions are corrected b}^ 
preparatory legislation. 

The introduction of all kinds of spirituous liquors into the Indian 
Territory has been prohibited b}^ act of Congress since the occupation 
of the country by the Five Tribes. If incorporated into Oklahoma, 
without constitutional prohibition, it is believed b}^ many that the 
Indians would be demoralized and destro3^ed. No State has ever been 
admitted into the Union with a clause in its constitution prohibiting 
the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. But in view of the 
traditional polic}^ of the General Government in dealing with the Five 
Tribes, it is certain that whenever the affairs of the Indian Territor}^ 
are permanenth^ settled, and the conditions justify the establishment 
of a State government, a demand will be made that Congress require 
in the enalDling act that a prohibition clause be inserted in the State 
constitution. 

It is claimed b}^ some excellent gentlemen who will probably address 



12 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

this committee that to cross State lines is an impediment to cheap rail- 
road transportation and that railroad freights would reach Oklahoma 
at a lower rate in a single State. This is an assertion unsupported by 
an}" legitimate proof. Not a case can be cited in the United States, so 
far as I know, in support of this contention. The rates for passengers 
and freight on the trunk-line railroad systems in Oklahoma, with one 
exception, are limited by the charters under which they were built, 
and if any law is violated the Interstate Commerce Commission will 
have the same poAver there as elsewhere in the United States. 

In thus stating a few of the reasons, gentlemen of the committee, 
wh}^ Oklahoma should be admitted to statehood now, and Avhy it is 
impracticable and unadvisable to include the Indian Territory in the 
enabling act at this time, I would not, if it were in my power, obstruct 
in any way any measure of relief for the deplorable conditions which 
exist in that Territory. It is the misfortune of the large white popu- 
lation, who are intelligent and worthy, that they have been left so long 
withort civil government. The Dawes Commission has been with 
them for ten 3"ears, with its army of pett}^^ officials, at a cost of nearly 
$2,000,000, and yet the final settlement of the estate is in the distant 
future. They are justly entitled to the prompt consideration of Con- 
gress. In my judgment the}^ should not only be given a Territorial 
government and a Delegate in the House of Representatives, but appro- 
priations should be made for a public school s^^stem, for charitable and 
penal institutions, and provisions for public roads, and additional 
courts for the suppression of crime should be provided without dela}^ 
A great section of countr}^ nearty as large as the State of Indiana and 
four-fifths as large as Kentucky, Virginia, Ohio, or Tennessee, and in 
all the elements of wealth capable of making one of the richest and 
most populous States in the Union, deserves something better from 
the American Congress than to be longer left without an}" form of 
civil government. 

It has not been my purpose to deal with the political phases of the 
statehood controversy. It is enough to say that local, personal, and 
partisan interests sink into insignificance compared with the fundamen- 
tal reasons that ought to govern in the admission of new States. The 
right of a free people to govern themselves under one republican 
system is supreme, has been so held in all the stages of our national 
history by constructive statesmen, and rises far above the selfish poli- 
cies of local politicians or temporary partisan interests. 

Both the great political parties of the country have recognized the 
rights of the Territories to statehood in successive national conven- 
tions. In 1896 the Republican national platform declared: 

We favor the admission of the remaining territories at the earliest practicable date, 
having due regard to the interests of the people of the Territories and of the United 

States. 

Again, in the Republican national convention of 1900 the following 
emphatic pledge was made in the platform: 

We favor home rule for and the early admission to statehood of the Territories of 
New Mexico, Arizona, and Oklahoma. 

The Democratic national convention of 1900 declared as follows: 

We denounce the failure of the Eepublican party to carry out its pledges to grant 
statehood to the Territories of Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, and we promise 
the people of these Territories immediate statehood. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 13 

Sureh^ gentlemen of the committee, in view of these emphatic 
pledges to the people of the Territories b}^ both national parties, there 
can be no political rivahy now in redeeming the promises made, as there 
was none in the last Congress when this committee reported and when 
the House of Representatives passed the statehood bill. 

I was recentl}^ asked by a distinguished public man: " Why do j^ou 
want statehood in view of 3^our wonderful growth and prosperit}' ?" 

To such a question there can be but one answer: We want it 
because we are American citizens, and because we are justh^ entitled 
to it. A Territory is only a temporary contrivance — a preparator}^ 
device for something better. It is a nonentity in all that relates to 
the General Government. A State is an integral part of the nation, 
with a potent voice in all its affairs. With its representatives in both 
Houses of Congress, it can protect its own interests and contribute to 
the welfare of sister States. Oklahoma has reached a period in its 
histor}^ when it has a double right to representation in Congress. It 
has more than double the population of an}^ Territory ever admitted to 
statehood. It has more than five times the wealth of three-quarters 
of the Territories when they were welcomed to the Union. No quali- 
fication is lacking for her to take at once her rightful place as a 
sovereign State. 

The Indian Territor}^ is not ready for statehood without much pre- 
parator}^ legislation, and will not be for several years, for reasons I 
have stated. It would be unjust to the 650,000 people of Oklahoma, 
rapidly increasing toward the million mark, to require them to wait 
for an undesirable union with the Indian Territory at an indefinite 
time in the future. Oklahoma has made for herself a name and fame 
never before equaled in the progress of American civilization. She 
is not unlike other Territories and the States in her desire to main- 
tain her distinctive character. Like the States you gentlemen repre- 
sent in this committee, she has a history around which chister the 
pride and hopes of her people. There, more than anywhere else, the 
wisdom of the free-home polic}^ has been demonstrated. She is cer- 
tainly entitled to the benefits that will come to her — all she has earned 
in the fourteen years of her existence — without her wonderful pros- 
perit}^ being crippled at this time by a forced union with the Indian 
Territor}^ with its nontaxable lands, and anomalous conditions, which 
are likely to remain unsettled for man}" years. What one of you 
would be willing to merge 3"our established institutions — the cherished 
historj^ of 3"our respected States — with an unorganized countr}^ rent 
with racial prejudices, and so permeated with troubles and compli- 
cations, legal and otherwise, that they have defied the wisdom of all 
branches of the Government for the last quarter of a century. 

Three favorable reports have heretofore been made by the Commit- 
tee on the Territories for the admission of Oklahoma as a State, with 
its present boundaries. At the second session of the Fift3^-third Con- 
gress Mr. Wheeler, of Alabama, from the Committee on the Terri- 
tories, favorabh" reported a bill for the admission, by the unanimous 
vote of the committee, although the Territory" was then less than five 
years old. In recommending the passage of the bill, the report said: 
'*The committee are convinced that there is a ver}" enviable future for 
this Territor}", and that its progress would be much enhanced by its 
being admitted to statehood." 

Again, in the Fifty-fifth Congress the Territorial Committee reported 



14 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

in favor of the admission of Oklahoma, concluding the report as 
follows: 

In the opinion of the committee no Territory has ever been better fitted to enter 
the Union as a State. 

And still again, in the last Congress the committee unanimously 
reported as a part of the omnibus bill the enabling act now pendmg, 
and the same was passed by the House without a division. 

It is a new and strange proposition in regard to the creation of new 
States that our remaining continental Territories should be blotted out 
and forced into geographical unions against all of the precedents in 
our national history. When the Territorj^ of Kansas was organized 
its western boundary extended to the east line of Utah, on the summit 
of the Rocky Mountains. When that State was admitted to the Union 
the Territory was divided and two great and prosperous States — Kansas 
and Colorado — are now within the original limits of Kansas Territory. 
The same policy was followed in regard to Nebraska Territor}^ Its 
western boundary was fixed at the crest of the Rocky Mountains, but 
when it was admitted as a State the Territory was divided and room 
was left for the State of W^5^oming. The great Territory of Dakota 
was divided into two magnificent States in recent years. 

Kentucky and Tennessee were carved out of territory belonging to 
Virginia and North Carolina. It does not appear in the history of that 
period that anybody shouted loud and long in favor of ''single state- 
hood," or that there was any danger in admitting too many States to 
the Federal Union. On the contrar^^, it does appear, except during 
the contest over the question of slavery, that Congress has promptly 
added more than thirty States to the original thirteen, iind that this is 
the first instance where it has been contended by anybody that vast 
areas of territory and great populations should be combined in order 
to limit the number of States hereafter, and thus reduce representa- 
tion in the United States Senate to which a great section of our com- 
mon country is justly entitled. 

It seems to me that the wiser and better plan is to preserve the 
autonomy of the Territories and to follow the policy so successf ulh^ 
pursued in the past in admitting new States, a policy which more than 
anything else has added to the wealth and glory of the nation. 

In conclusion, I desire to say that I am aware that it will be strenu- 
ousl}^ asserted hy gentlemen w^ho are in favor of "single statehood or 
none," that a majority of the people of Oklahoma desire a union with 
the Indian Territory. The real truth is that outside of three or four 
counties where the people are influenced by local interests, and of a 
few ambitious politicians of both political parties, nine-tenths of all 
our people are praying for the passage of the bill introduced by Mr. 
McGuire. They are ready for statehood now. They are entitled to it. 
In their behalf I appeal to the statesmanship of this committee and of 
this Congress to welcome Oklahoma into the family of States. 

The Chairma^^. Gentlemen of the committee, any one who desires 
to make inquiries of Mr. Clarke will now have an opportunity to do so. 

Mr. Robinson. Mr. Clarke, are you familiar with the racial matter 
in the Indian Territory ? 

Mr. Clarke. I think I am. 

Mr. Robinson. About how many Indians are there in the Indian 
Territory ? 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 15 

Mr. Clarke. It is impossible to tell. There are various specula- 
tions in regard to that matter. 

The Chairman. You have not examined the census report? 

Mr. Clarke. Probably the tribal population amounts, in round 
numbers, to 85,000. Of course all of that population are not full- 
blood Indians. It is, so to speak, using a plain term, a conglomera- 
tion. Some have full blood, some half blood, and some a third. 
Some are pretty thoroughly bleached out; and in addition to that, we 
have the squaw men to make up the whole number of the five tribes. 

Mr. Robinson. In separating the Indians into two classes — one com- 
posed of the Indians who largely need the support of the Government 
and its protection, who could be styled wards of the Government, and 
the other composed of thoroughly adept business men, ranking fairly 
well with the whites — what number of each class would you sslj there 
are in the Indian Territory? 

Mr. Clarke. It would be impossible to state that, so far as I know. 
Those that would be called business men are numerous in the Chero- 
kee country and in the Creek countiy; less so in the Choctaw country; 
less so in the Chickasaw country in proportion to the whole number 
of the members of the Five Tribes. 

Mr. Robinson. But I would include in this class of men able to 
take care of themselves, as the whites are able to take care of them- 
selves, business men, farmers, and what we would style a good Ameri- 
can citizen. Could you give us the number that are in that grade? 

Mr. Clarke. If you would go into the Indian Territory among the 
farming population, you would be surprised at the number of the tribal 
population that are cultivating good farms. In the Cherokee country 
the}" are numerous, but in the other nations there are ver}" few. Speak- 
ing general!}^, it is a vast rental S3^stem. 

Mr. Robinson. But could you give us the separation of the class, 
by the number in each, of the Territorial population Indians as a whole ? 

Mr. Clarke. It would be impossible for any person on earth to do 
that. They are not specified in the census, and I have heard statements 
before Congressional committees in the past, and possibly they are made 
here which, in my judgment, are very wild in connection with that mat- 
ter. It is a pure matter of speculation. 

Mr. Robinson. You would not venture an opinion? 

Mr. Clarke. I have no positive information on the subject, but I 
have just as much information as anj^body else, because I am quite 
familiar with the conditions that exist throughout the Indian Territor}^. 

Mr. Robinson. I think I have no more questions. 

The Chairman. Ask him what his guess is, Mr. Robinson. 

Mr. Robinson. I would rather not have a guess. 

Mr. Stevens. I think I can make a suggestion along that line. The 
Dawes Commission has been searching for ten vears, at a cost of 
12,000,000, and they have only been able to find 40,000 Indians. 

Mr. Clarke. The remainder being what are known, in popular 
parlance in that country, as squaw men. 

Mr. Stevens. No; I mean people the}^ have found to be Indians, 
entitled to allotments. The}" have only found 40,000. With all the 
power and influence the Government has given them they have not 
been able to find more Indians than that. 

Mr. Clarke. If vou will refer to the statistics, I think you will 
find there are from 80,000 to 85,000. 



16 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is it not a fact, however, that that 85,000 includes 
negroes ? 

Mr. Clarke. Possibly the freedmen. 

Mr. Lloyd. And the}'' are about 36,000? 

Mr. Clarke. A portion of the tribes are what is known as freed- 
men, more in the Creek and in the Cherokee country, and perhaps in 
the Chickasaw^ country, than anywhere else. I understand that the 
36,000, in round numbers, just given you as colored population in the 
Indian Territor}^, includes all the colored population, the freedmen as 
well, except the Indians of mixed blood. 

Mr. Lloyd. And that the 85,000 you speak of includes the negro 
population. 

Mr. Clarke. It includes all the freedmen connected with tribal 
relations. I want to sa}^ further, in regard to a statement made by 
Mr. Stevens, that the business of the Dawes Commission has not been 
concluded, and how many will be put upon the rolls after the special 
court provided for bj^ the last Congress gets through w^ith its work, 
and the Dawes Commission is terminated some years in the future, it 
will be impossible to state. 

Mr. Stevens. Let me ask you if we can not figure it this way. If 
it takes ten years to find 40,000, how man}^ j^ears will it take to find 
85,000? 

Mr. Clarke. So far as the Dawes Commission is concerned, and the 
work they are doing and have to do in the Indian Territory, I know 
of no intelligent man, w^hatever may be his views in regard to state- 
hood, who has any hope that that Commission will conclude its work 
in the next five or six years. I desire to say, however, and I think 
the examination of reports of the Dawes Commission from year to 
year will bear out the statement, that the}^ have been continuall}^ say- 
ing during all these ten j^ears, when they have come to Congress for 
the purpose of securing appropriations, that they would complete the 
work in a ver}^ short period of time. Ten years have elapsed, and in 
my judgment five years more will elapse before that question is finally 
settled. 

Mr. LiLLEY. What is the total population of the Indian Territory? 

Mr. Clarke. By the census of 1900 it was given as 392,000 and 
some hundreds. 

Mr. LiLLEY. What is it, in your opinion, to-day? 

Mr. Clarke. I think the population of the Indian Territory would 
reach at least 550,000. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Clarke, to what tribe do these Indians 
belong — those included in the numbers from 1:0,000 to 85,000, as you 
have stated? 

Mr. Clarke. All of the tribes. 

The Chairman. Name them. 

Mr. Clarke. The Cherokees, the Creeks, the Choctaws, the Sem- 
inoles, and the Chickasaws, constituting the five tribes, which origi- 
nally moved from Georgia and Alabama to the Indian Territory. 

The Chairman. It has been suggested that the Delawares should be 
added. 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is correct. 

Mr. Clarke. The Delawares are not a distinctive tribe in the Indian 
Territory. I think it was in 1868 — I remember very well, because I 
was a member of this House at the time — that the Delawares moved 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 17 

from Kansas, surrendering their reserve and selling it, and became 
merged with the Cherokee tribe; and while they are known as Dela- 
wares, j^et at the same time, according to the terms of the treaty, 
they are members of the Cherokee tribe. 

The Chairman. Do these Indians maintain tribal relations now? 
I am asking these questions assuming that the committee has no 
information such as you are imparting to us to-day. Do these Indians 
maintain tribal relations at this time? 

Mr. Clarke. Every one of them, and it is provided in the agree- 
ments that they shall continue until March 4, 1906. There is, how- 
ever, no absolute prohibition by the terms of the agreement that they 
may not continue longer. The language, if I remember correct^, is 
that they shall continue until 1906. 

The Chairman. What arrangement is made with reference to these 
Indians maintaining tribal relations in this way? 

Mr. Clarke. The laws under which the Dawes Commission are 
operating provide for the division of the whole bod}^ of the land 
among the members of the five tribes and the final settlement of the 
estate. The termination of tribal governments will follow. 

The Chairman. And are bodies of land assigned to these five tribes? 

Mr. Clarke. The difi'erent treaties relating to the five tribes provide 
that a certain number of acres shall be assigned to the Indians as home- 
steads, which are nontaxable for the period of twenty-one 3'ears. 

The Chairman. Do these Indians own the homestead in severalty 
or do they belong to the tribe? 

Mr. Clarke. They receive, under the act, a nontaxable fee-simple 
title in severalty. 

The Chairman. In severalty? 

Mr. Clarke. In severalty, for the period of twenty-one 3^ears. 

The Chairman. From and after what date does the twenty one 
years run? 

Mr. Clarke. From the date of the patent which they receive from 
the Government. 

The Chairman. Can you give some of those dates? 

Mr. Clarke. With the exception of the Seminole country", which 
is a very small fraction of the entire Indian Territor}^, very few 
patents are being issued at this time. Those that have been issued are 
mostly in the Creek country. The ways of the Department of the 
Interior are, I am told by citizens of that Territoiy, provokingly slow. 

Mr. Robinson. Mr. Clarke, not having been able to give a judgment 
as to the number of these two classes that I first designated, may I ask 
you to state if there are not thousands of Indians in the Indian Terri- 
tory whom nonexperts could not distinguish from an American in their 
appearance, in their habits of industrj^, and in their business and 
emplo3mient? 

Mr. Clarke. I think if an}^ of jou gentlemen would go among the 
members of the Five Tribes you would see quite a number of what 
are known as squaw men, who are white men — Americans — who have 
gone down there and married in among the Indian tribes for the pur- 
pose of personal benefit in a financial wa}^; in other words, in order to 
obtain rights to allotment in the land. Those people are what are 
known as squaw men, and if I were to take my choice between the real 
Indians and the squaw men I would choose an Indian every time; and 
I think 3^ou, Mr. Robinson, would do the same. 



18 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Robinson. That is hardl}^ responsive, Mr. Clarke. I said among 
those Indians of part Indian blood. You said 85,000, and Mr. Stevens 
suggests 40,000. 

Mr. Clarke. No; you will excuse me for interrupting jon. I do 
not understand that that is Mr. Stevens's suggestion. He says that 
only about 40,000 have been enrolled by the Dawes Commission up to 
this time. 

Mr. Stevens. Yes; about 40,000 have been enrolled. 

Mr. Robinson. Let it go at that. Among those who are tinctured in 
any way with Indian blood, and so styled in this estimate of the num- 
ber, are there not thousands, who, by reason of their business employ- 
ments, their appearance, their dealings with their neighbors, and all, 
would scarcely be detected by a nonexpert? 

Mr. Clarke. They are white men. 

Mr. Robinson. White men with Indian blood, you mean? 

Mr. Clarke. No, sir; I mean they are white men, known as squaw 
men in that country, who have married into the Indian tribes. 

Mr. Robinson. Then you think all the Indians in any way tinctured 
with Indian blood need the protection of the United States Govern- 
ment in the manner you have suggested in 3^our general remarks ? 

Mr. Clarke. I think they need a great deal of preparatory legisla- 
tion before the}" should be admitted to statehood; to wit, provision 
for public schools, provision for public roads, provision for the care 
of the insane, provision for a reform school for boys, a reform school 
for girls, and all the other institutions which a civilized community 
ought to have for the protection of its interests, and especially I think 
they need more courts and jails, in order that the vast volume of crime 
that exists there may be more effectively suppressed. 

Mr. Robinson. But I was trying to draw out their individual 
strength and characteristics, and I will ask you if those persons tinc- 
tured with Indian blood class within the general number that has been 
mentioned? Are they not bankers, lawyers, merchants, and do they 
not fill every avenue of useful business and occupation ? 

Mr. Clarke. That is true of a certain per cent. 

Mr. Robinson. Do not thousands of them so fill those places ? 

Mr. Clarke. I am unable to state the number; but in the Cherokee 
tribe especially, and in fact in all of the tribes, there is a very consider- 
able number that have all the qualifications to which you refer. 

Mr. Robinson. There being 500,000 to 600,000 white people, except 
the number that has been stated variously, there are a good many of 
the white people who need good government there, and the proportion 
of Indians who need it is veiy small? 

Mr. Clarke, The records of the courts show that they need it very 
badly. 

Mr. Robinson. But the proportion of whites is ver}^ large, is it not, 
in the Indian Territory population ? 

Mr. Clarke. It is so. 

Mr. Robinson. In your judgment, is there any legal objection to a 
statehood government for the Indian Territory, aside from the ques- 
tion of joint or single statehood? 

Mr. Clarke. The treaties provide that the tribal relations shall be 
extended until the 4th of March, 1906; and if the gentleman will 
refer to what is known as the Atoka agreement, which was made 
between the United States and the Choctaws and Chickasaws some 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 19 

years ago, he will find that it is stated in substance that the conditions 
that are expected will be produced b}^ the terms of that agreement 
would be such that no further interference on the part of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States would be expected previous to the -ith 
of March, 1906. 

Mr. Robinson. Would that be a moral or a legal deterrent, in 3'our 
opinion ? 

Mr. Claeke. It would be such an agreement, in my judgment, that 
it would be substantial and real if made between two individuals, and 
would involve their honor if it was violated. 

Mr. Robinson. Has Congress the legal authority to make a State 
out of the Indian Territory, either single or joint, in 3'our opinion ? 

Mr. Clarke. I think that Congress is substantiall}^ supreme in all 
these matters. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided 
that Congress has the power to override a treaty. 

Mr. Robinson. Of course I would like to go into the subject of the 
Dawes Commission with you, but I understand it to be outside of your 
general purpose, and will not inquire about that. I share your opin- 
ions, however, as they have been expressed. 

Mr. Lloyd. Your conception is that there is no legal barrier to 
statehood so far as the Indian Territory is concerned? 

Mr. Clarke. After the 1th of March, 1906. 

Mr. Lloyd. You did not restrict it, as I understood the answer. 

Mr. Clarke. I intended to restrict it until the 1th of March, 1906, 
because those are some of the specific provisions of the agreements. 

Mr. Lloyd. Did you not sa}^ that Congress was supreme in the 
matter and that Congress had the power to override treaties ? 

Mr. Clarke. I said that the Supreme Court of the United States has 
decided that an act of Congress can supplant a treaty. 

Mr. Lloyd. Then there is no legal barrier if Congress was disposed 
to grant statehood to the Indian Territory. 

Mr. Clarke. Well, I hardty know whether you would call it legal 
or not. It would be the exercise of an arbitrary power, because they 
possessed it and because the}" were desirous to exercise it before the 
expiration of the existing agreements. 

Mr. Lloyd. Are there an}" Indians in Oklahoma? 

Mr. Clarke. The total number is 11,938, as reported b}" the Indian 
agents, besides about 300 Apaches held as prisoners of war at Fort Sill. 

Mr. Lloyd. Are they on reservations — all of them ? 

Mr. Clarke. No, sir; with the exception of the Poncas, the Otoes, 
and the Osages their lands have been allotted in severalty. 

Mr. Lloyd. With reference to pure blood, which 3"ou spoke of a 
while ago, are these Indians full bloods, or are they a mongrel breed? 

Mr. Clarke. The}" are somewhat mixed, but not very much. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is it not a fact, Mr. Clarke, that there are as many 
pure blood Indians in Oklahoma as there are in the Indian Territory i 

Mr. Clarke. Oh, no, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. Will you contradict the statement that has been made 
before this committee that there are not more than 2,000 pure-blood 
Indians in the Indian Territory? 

Mr. Clarke. I certainly would, and I am surprised to hear that such 
a statement should be made by anybody before this committee, because 
I am perfectly certain it will not he borne out by the facts in the case. 

Mr. Lloyd. You speak of the necessity for schools in the Indian 



20 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Territory. Is it not a fact that the Indians in the Indian Territory 
have good schools at present? 

Mr. Clarke. Very few compared with the whole population. How- 
ever, the white people are excluded from the Indian schools, and in 
this connection, if the gentleman will allow me to answer further, 1 
refer the committee to a report made last year by the special agent of 
the Interior Department, Mr. Churchill, which covers that whole ques- 
tion of the Indian schools, as well as the necessity for white schools in 
the Indian Territory. It is a very interesting document, and will give 
the committee full information in regard to the conditions that exist 
there. 

Mr. Lloyd. I have not been fortunate enough to read that book, 
but I am concerned to get at this question^that is, the kind of schools 
the Indians have in the Indian Territory. 

Mr. Clarke. Mr. Churchill deals with that very subject, and I regret 
to say that he has a very low official opinion of the character of the 
Indian schools. I think he bases it on too low an estimate of the 
character of those schools. 

Mr. Lloyd. What is your opinion of the schools, because you are 
familiar with the situation there, as stated in your opening statement? 

Mr. Clarke. I have been made familiar with the schools in Okla- 
homa Territory, and I am quite familiar with the Indian Territory, 
but I am free to say the Indian schools in the Indian Territory, in 
their standard of excellence, are far below the schools which exist 
among the wtiite population of Oklahoma or in any of the States. 

Mr. Lloyd. But the Indians have better schools than the whites in 
the Indian Territory? 

Mr. Clarke. Oh, no; in the towns of the Indian Territor}^ which 
have been segregated from the Indian domain under the laws which 
have been passed by Congress, good schools have been established, 
because there has been an opportunity to tax the town property. 

Mr. Lloyd. Are there an}^ Indian schools in the Indian Territory 
outside of the incorporated towns that have a population of 200 ? 

Mr. Clarke. Mr. Churchill reported last year in his report to the 
Interior Department that outside of the towns there are no common 
schools for white children in the Indian Territory. 

Mr. Robinson. You represented Kansas in Congress? 

Mr. Clarke. For six years. 

Mr. Robinson. And I assume from that that you are rather familiar 
with the Indian population of Kansas. 

Mr. Clarke. I was for six years a member of the Committee on 
Indian Affairs and for two years its chairman, and I was necessarily 
made familiar at that time with the conditions in the Indian Territory. 
J have since lived on the borders of the Indian Territory. 

Mr. Robinson. Are there more blanket Indians in Kansas than 
there are in the Indian Territory? 

Mr. Clarke. Oh, no; the only blanket Indians that remain in Kan- 
sas many years ago are what are known as the Prairie band of the 
Potawatomi tribe. They are located north of Topeka, the capital of 
that State, and only a small band. I do not know whether they have 
abandoned the blanket or not. 

Mr. Robinson. You think you are quite correct in the opinion that 
there are not more blanket Indians in Kansas than in the Indian Terri- 
tory? 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 21 

Mr. Clarke. I am. It is a matter of opinion, however, and as I 
stated some time ago it would be a matter of opinion Avith anybody 
else who would make a statement in connection with that question. 

Mr. Robinson. Is there a single blanket Indian in the Indian Terri- 
tor}^ ? 

Mr. Clarke. Well, sir, it is possible there may be, or it is possible 
there are not. Just how they are dressing at this time, during this 
cold weather, I am not able to sa}^ 

Mr. Robinson. I mean generally, during a year's time. Will you 
venture an opinion that there are an}^ blanket Indians of considerable 
number in the Indian Territory ? 

Mr. Clarke. I can not say what dress they are using at this time. 

Mr. Reid. Mr. Clarke, you spoke of the per cent of illiteracy in 
the Indian Territory, and 1 believe you mentioned it as about 15 per 
cent. 

Mr. Clarke. About 15.9 per cent. 

Mr. Reid. That includes the Indians, does it — the Indian population? 

Mr. Clarke. 15.9 per cent of the voters and about 20 per cent of 
the entire population. These figures are shown in the census. 

Mr. Reid. You gave some data in regard to the criminal court 
records in the Indian Territory? 

Mr. Clarke. They are taken from the report of the Attorney- 
General up to the 30th of June, 1902. 

Mr. Reid. Have you the same data in regard to Oklahoma? 

Mr. Clarke. I have. 

Mr. Reid. How does it compare with the Indian Territory ? 

Mr. Clarke. It can be found in the report of the Attorney-General. 

Mr. Reid. Have you instituted any comparison between them ? 

Mr. Clarke. I have not. It is a mere fraction compared with the 
Indian Territory, but I want to say, in this connection, that the costs 
of the United States courts in the Indian Territory are more than 
twice as much as those of the United States courts in the State of New 
York, with its vast population. 

Mr. Reid. The expense of conducting the courts is greater there. 

Mr. Clarke. The report of the Attorney-General shows, in round 
numbers, that the costs of the United States courts in the Indian Ter- 
ritory, in which there are four judges, are twice as much as all the 
United States courts in the State of New York. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do you think that is a fair comparison of criminal 
costs, when you compare the costs of New York, or any other State, 
with the costs of criminal prosecutions in the Indian Territory ? 

Mr. Clarke. Eliminating the prosecutions in the Indian Territory 
under the intercourse act, it would be a comparative statement. That 
would have to be eliminated in order to make it a fair comparison. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is it not true that all cases that are tried in the Indian 
Territory are tried under the laws of the United States? 

Mr. Clarke. Criminal ofi'enses? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes; all criminal ofi'enses are tried under the laws of 
the United States. 

Mr. Clarke. That is true. 

Mr. Lloyd. But in Oklahoma they are under the Territorial law; 
they are tried by circuit judges and justices of the peace? 

Mr. Clarke. That is true. 



22 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Lloyd. Can you tell us how many cases there were tried in the 
circuit courts of the Territory of Oklahoma ? 

Mr. Clarke. You refer to the United States courts? 

Mr. Lloyd. No, I mean the Territorial courts. How many criminal 
cases were tried in the Territorial courts of Oklahoma? 

Mr. Clarke. I have not the figures at hand, but I can state the 
number of convicts in the penitentiary sentenced by the Territorial 
courts of Oklahoma, as stated in the governor's report, is 326. The 
number of convicts now serving in the penitentiary, sent by the courts 
in the Indian Territory, is 558. 

Mr. Lloyd. That is getting at a percentage that is legitimate. 

Mr. Clarke. I refer the gentleman to the report of the Attorney- 
General, which gives all of these items in regard to the courts, with 
reference to which gentlemen have made an inquiry. 

Mr. Lloyd. You spoke a short time ago in your statement about 
the people of Oklahoma being in favor of separate statehood, and you 
said nine-tenths of them were in favor of it. 

Mr. Clarke. Yes. 

Mr. Lloyd. You made a statement to the effect that there was 
nobody except a few politicians and persons who had some personal 
ax to grind who are not in favor of it. Is it not true that the chamber 
of commerce in 3^our own town of Oklahoma has passed some resolu- 
tion with reference to this matter within the last two or three weeks; 
and if so, what is that resolution? 

Mr. Clarke. You have not correctly summarized my statement in 
regard to the sentiment of Oklahoma. 

Mr. Lloyd. I beg your pardon if I have not. 

Mr. Clarke. I beg leave to remind you and the committee of what 
my statement was, that with the exception of three or four counties 
and a few ambitious politicians of both parties, nine-tenths of the 
people of Oklahoma were in favor of the bill introduced by Mr. 
McGruire. 

Mr. Lloyd. What three or four counties are those ? 

Mr. Clarke. I refer to counties in the eastern and southeastern 
portion of the Territory of Oklahoma, some of which adjoin the Indian 
Territory. 

Mr. Lloyd. What counties are they? Name the counties, please. 

Mr. Clarke. I think it would be fair to name Cleveland County, 
Oklahoma County, Pottawatomie Count}^, and perhaps Lincoln County. 

Mr. Lloyd. What per cent of the population of Oklahoma is in 
those counties? 

Mr. Clarke. I can not give it to you accurately on the spur of the 
moment, but I would estimate about one-sixth of the population of the 
entire Territory on a basis of 650,000 people. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is it not true that in the last campaign there was an 
issue joined in 5^our Territory on the question of statehood between the 
parties ? 

Mr. Clarke. I want to say, in answer to that question, that in Ter- 
ritorial politics and the election of Territorial delegates and all county 
officers, and such officers as we are permitted by the grace of Congress 
to elect in a Territory, a great many side issues enter into the contest — 
for instance, personal issues, local issues, questions in regard to the 
location of the capital of the future State, commercial interests, rail- 
road interests, etc. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 23 

Me. Lloyd. Do you consider the question of statehood a side issue 
in 3^our Territoi\y ? 

Mr. Clarke. Not with me. 

Mr. Lloyd. I mean with 3^our people. I do not mean so far as you 
are concerned. 

Mr. Clarke. It could hardly be called a side issue. 

Mr. Lloyd. Would it not be a main issue in a political contest? 

Mr. Clarke. I hardly know what you would call a main issue. It 
would not necessarily reflect the sentiments of all those who voted for 
the candidates. Personal politics in the Territories are, in the main, 
supreme. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is it not true that one of the political parties in your 
Territory declared in favor of single statehood and one declared for 
separate statehood? 

Mr. Clarke. Not necessarily that; substantially so. One of the 
parties has maintained in that Territory that it is practicable to obtain 
immediate single statehood, with emphasis on the immediate, and argu- 
ments were made all over the Territory that the proper way to get 
Oklahoma admitted into the Union promptly as a State by this session 
of Congress was to have immediate single statehood. The real truth 
is that these politicians to whom I refer — and they are ver}^ excellent 
gentlemen; one of them is my distinguished friend here who sits on 
the right 

Mr. Lloyd. And one on the left. 

Mr. Clarke. The real truth is that at home it is openly announced 
that no statehood is desired until 1906, or even near the end of the 
decade, unless the purposes of these distinguished gentlemen who call 
themselves in favor of single statehood can be accomplished. 

Mr. Lloyd. You say one party does that. What party is it you 
speak of? 

Mr. Clarke. In the last campaign it was a combination of the 
Democratic and Populist parties. 

The Chairman. Mr. Lilley desires to propound a question. 

Mr. Lilley. Do I understand that nine-tenths of the people sup- 
ported a candidate who was for immediate statehood ? 

Mr. Clarke. Oh, no. 

Mr. Lilley. That was j^our former statement. 

Mr. Clarke. No; the candidate who was in favor of statehood for 
Oklahoma, with a provision requiring the consent of the constitutional 
convention that Congress might at any time hereafter exercise their 
own judgment in the matter, was elected, and he is sitting here on my 
left, Mr. McGuire. 

Mr. Moon. Mr. Clarke, did I understand you correctly to say that 
it is not advisable to unite Indian Territory with Oklahoma in one 
State ? 

Mr. Clarke. At least not until proper preparations are made and 
reforms are instituted in regard to the prevalence of crime, the estab- 
lishment of a school S3^stem, and such other legislation as would place 
the Indian Territory on an equal basis with Oklahoma. 

Mr. Moon. Then what is the purpose of that provision in the bill 
hj which you seek to dismember the Terrritorjr and add it by piece- 
meal to Oklahoma? 

Mr. Clarke. I do not understand that it is a provision which seeks 
to dismember the Territory, but inasmuch as the Constitution of the 



24 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

United States provides that the hnes of a State shall not be changed 
without the consent of the State and of the United States, it was 
deemed advisable to give the consent of Oklahoma, through its con- 
stitutional convention, so that when affairs were composed in the 
Indian Territory" and Congress was in a position to form a correct 
judgment with regard to the conditions which exist in that Territory, 
if they were so disposed, the}" could then exercise the right without 
requiring the consent of the State after its formation. 

Mr. Moon. Why say an3"thing about it at all? If you want state- 
hood, wlw not have statehood for Oklahoma and not interfere with 
the conditions in the Territory ? 

Mr. Clarke. It is one of those things which it was deemed advisable 
to insert in the bill in order to leave Congress free hereafter to exer- 
cise its independent judgment. 

Mr. Moon. Now, to get down to business, is not the purpose this: 
That if you admit Oklahoma in its present shape, there may be some 
doubt about its political complexion, but if 3"ou have in a provision b}^ 
which you can attach the Republican party of the Territor}^ to you, it 
makes 3^ou safe. 

Mr. Clarke. Well, it is ver}" hard to define the motives of men when 
you come to political questions. 

Mr. Moox. Would it not be the fair thing to let the Territory alone 
and admit your State by itself? 

Mr. Clarke. I think it would be entirely fair, entirely just. 

Mr. Moon. And let them fight it out themselves. 

Mr. Clarke. I think it would be entirely fair and just. 

Mr. Moon. Then you think this provision in 3^our bill ought to be 
eliminated ? 

Mr. Clarke. I have confidence in the good judgment of this com- 
mittee, and if the}^ should eliminate that provision I do not think there 
would be any complaint on the part of any considerable number of 
people in Oklahoma, unless there might be on the part of my friend 
here, Mr. Do3de, and gentlemen who are cooperating Avith him to 
secure what the3^ call single statehood alone. 

Mr. Moon. I am not talking about the discretion of the committee 
in the matter; it is not limited. I am talking about 3"our judgment 
as to a fair condition of things out there, and as to what ought to be 
done. Is it not 3"our opinion, in view of what 3^ou said about the Ter- 
ritor3^ and the unfairness of the tribal relations at present, or of making 
any provision hereafter for the dismemberment of the Territor3", that 
the fair thing is to let the Territor3" alone and fight for 3"our own 
statehood ? 

Mr. Clarke. I think that would be a very fair proposition. 

Mr. Moon. Then you agree with me that this provision should be 
eliminated? That is your judgment? 

Mr. Clarke. I should sa3" that 3^ou had acted the part of a statesman 
if 3"ou should favor the elimination of that proposition. (Laughter.)" 

Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Clarke, I want to ask 3"ou some other questions. 
There is considerable said, I think, on the outside about the question 
of what you have in the Territory" in the wa3" of mineral deposits. In 
your statement I understood 3"ou to sa3" that 3"ou had an abundance of 
salt, gypsum, oil, and coal ? 

Mr. Clarke. Yes. 

Mr. Lloyd. Where are the coal beds in your Territory? 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 25 

Mr. Clarke. Coal has not been extensively developed for commer- 
cial purposes, but it has been discovered in the vicinity of Stroud and 
in various portions of the Territory; and the indications are that as 
time goes on more coal deposits will be discovered. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is it not true that there is the very greatest inducement 
to your people to open up the coal fields because of the excessive price 
of coal in Oklahoma Territory? 

Mr. Clarke. I can refer the gentleman to several instances where 
borings are being made and are to be made very soon for the purpose 
of developing the coal, oil, and gas. 

Mr. Lloyd. What is the price of soft coal in Oklahoma Territory ? 

Mr. Clarke. I am not able to give you the price. I think it is 
somewhere from $4 to $6. 

Mr. Lloyd. I am told it is |S for soft coal. 

Mr. Clarke. I do not think it is |8 on the line of the Sante Fe road. 

The Chairman. It is now past 12 o'clock, and I want to ask what is 
the desire of the committee as to whether we shall rise now and con- 
tinue these inquiries of Mr. Clarke later. I think the inquiries are 
illuminating and we had better take plenty of time. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, it has been stated by Mr. McGuire that 
I shall probably address the committee. At this time I desire that an 
order be made for an abstract of the census reports of the Indian Ter- 
ritory and Oklahoma Territory. 

Mr. Lloyd. They are right here in the record. 

Mr. Doyle. Also volume 1 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
States and the Session Laws of 1901. 

Mr. Lloyd. They are in the room. 

Mr. Doyle. I have not been able to find the Session Laws. 

The Chairman. The clerk of the committee will be able to get them 
at the Library. 

Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Chairman, I wish to state a personal matter. It 
becomes necessary for me to leave the city to-morrow afternoon, and 
I am very anxious that so much of this inquiry as can be had shall be 
made before I leave. If the committee can accommodate me by meet- 
ing this afternoon and finishing at least Mr. Clarke's statement, so that 
Mr. Doyle can take up the single statehood matter to-morrow, we can 
practically hear the two sides in the two principal arguments that will 
be made. I take it that Mr. Clarke is stating the case for Oklahoma. 

The Chairman. For Oklahoma, excluding the Indian Territoiy. 

Mr. Lloyd. Of course I do not mean by that that Mr. McGuire 
will not make the real statement of the case, but I mean as to the 
persons he represents. Mr. Clarke will probably present the case for 
Oklahoma separately. Is that correct? 

Mr. McGuire. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. And Mr. Doyle will probably state the position of the 
single statehood people. 

Mr. McGuire. Yes, sir; I think that is right. 

Mr. Doyle. I would be glad to have both those statements before I 
go away, if we can possibly arrange it in that way. That is the 
arrangement suggested to me this morning, by Mr. McGuire. 

The committee thereupon adjourned. 



26 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 



Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives, 

Washingtoji^ D. C, Jamiavy %6^ 190 1/. 

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward L. Hamil- 
ton in the chair. 

The Chairman. The Hon. Thomas H. Doyle will address the com- 
mittee on the subject of statehood for Oklahoma. 

STATEMENT OF nON. THOMAS H. BOYLE, OF OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, not 
unmindful of the great responsibilities resting on this committee, in 
that 3^our action as the Committee on Territories to a very great 
extent molds the destiny of more than 3,000,000 people living in the 
six Territories of the United States, and with a profound respect 
for the wisdom and statesmanship of the committee as a whole and a 
proper respect for the judgment and sense of duty of each individual 
member of this committee, I shall in this argument for single state- 
hood for Oklahoma and Indian Territories, as provided for b}" the Rob- 
inson bill, be guided by that great rule of human conduct, a golden 
rule in cases of this kind, where a man seeks to represent his people. 
That rule is that you should be careful concerning the principles you 
select as a test of their rights and obligations. Mindful of the fact 
that the question of creating and admitting a new State into the Union 
is one of the most important questions that can possibly come before 
this committee or the Congress of the United States, I would ask you 
to remember that this question of statehood is the question of supreme 
importance to all the people of Oklahoma and Indian Territories. 

Mr. Chairman, far to the west in the south-central part of this coun- 
try lies the fairest and richest domain of this land. It is the home of 
more than 1,000,000 white people who have been born, reared, and 
trained to the duties of self-government in their former homes. They 
are the best of our country's enterprising pioneers. The}^^ are an 
industrious, intelligent, patriotic, and liberty-loving people. All are 
competent to become citizens of a State, all are capable of self-govern- 
ment. They have come from every State in the Union, and this fact 
is one of the happiest circumstances attending the settlement of the 
twin Territories. 

Mr. Chairman, our people have bound themselves to this region by 
all the ties that bind men to their homes. The}^ have made it one of 
the richest and most prosperous portions of America. Nature had 
already done its share. In the language of the eloquent Grad}?^: 
"There is centered all that please or prosper human kind. A perfect 
climate above a fertile soil yields to the husbandman every product of 
the Temperate Zone. There by night the cotton whitens beneath the 
stars, and by day the wheat locks the golden sunshine in its bearded 
sheaf. Of the essential items of all industries — coal, cotton, iron, and 
wood — that region has an abundance. Field, mine, and forest." That, 
sir, is the picture and promise of our land, the State proposed to be 
made by the union of both our Territories. 

That great author Washington Irving visited our country at an 
early date and he has described it in one of his works. The Prairies. 
You have all read that book. There is pictured our grand primeval 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 27 

forests, fertile and extended prairies, magniiicent rivers, and beautiful 
mountains. 

With all these blessings what more is necessaiy to make us a happy 
and contented people? That one thing, the birthright of freemen. 
Our God-given heritage as American citizens. A people's government, 
made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the 
people. In other words, the sacred right of self-government; the 
right to participate in the affairs of this nation — our countr}^ 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, you have heard 
Senator Clarke, and you will hear other gentlemen distinguished for 
their ability and influence, men of eminence and high place in our 
Territories advocating that Oklahoma alone is entitled to statehood, 
and that conditions in the Indian Territory are not right for state- 
hood. This raises the main question that is now before you, the ques- 
tion of single or separate statehood for these Territories. 

This question is one of vital importance to the people of both Ter- 
ritories, as not only their future prosperity depends upon its right 
solution, but also their social and political status in this nation as well. 

There can be but little doubt that a large majority of the people of 
Oklahoma and Indian Territory favor their union as a single State, and 
they believe that not only the interest of all the people of both Terri- 
tories, but the interests of the nation as well, would be better served 
by their union than by maintaining a separate existence. This senti- 
ment among our people is founded not only on sound sense and State 
pride, but on high and patriotic motives, in that they are prompted by 
the great consideration of how they can most certainly "sow great- 
ness to their posterity and successors." 

HISTORICAL. 

When the Indian Territory was created and defined in 183^1:, the 
boundaries were practicall}^ what constitutes the outer boundar}^ of 
Oklahoma and Indian Territory to-day. All of Oklahoma is included 
except what is novf Beaver County, formerly known as ''No Man's 
Land," which was added to and became a part of Oklahoma by act of 
Congress of May 2, 1890. 

March, 1899, "the act passed, creating Oklahoma, and opening to 
settlement 3,000,000 acres of land in the heart of what now constitutes 
Oklahoma Territory. This land was opened April 22, 1889. No 
form of government was provided for until May 2, 1890, then the 
organic act was passed. September, 1890, the Sauk and Fox, Iowa 
and Potawatomi Indian reservations, containing 1,282,434 acres in 
the eastern part of the Territor^^, and the Che^^enne and Arapaho res- 
ervations, containing 4,297,771 acres in the western part, were opened 
to settlement. 

September 16, 1893, the Cherokee strip, containing 6,014,239 acres, 
was open to settlement. 

In 1895 the Kickapoo Reservation, containing 206,662 acres, was 
open to settlement. 

1896 Greer County was added by a decision of the Supreme Court 
of the United States. 

In 1901 the Kiowa, Comanche, Apache, and Wichita reservations 
were opened to settlement, containing acres. 

And we still have the Osage, Ponca, and Oto reservations and the 



28 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Kiowa and Comanche pasture reservations, approximating 2,000,000 
acres, still reserved from settlement. This, in brief, is the history of 
the opening to settlement of Oklahoma. One after another the Indian 
reservations have been added to original Oklahoma, which constitutes 
less than one-eighth of the present Oklahoma. 

The provisions of our organic act provide for the further adding to 
Oklahoma in the future the remaining area of the original Indian 
Territory that now constitutes the Indian Territor}^ Section 1 of our 
organic act reads as follows: 

Section 1, page 38, Statutes of Oklahoma: That all that portion of the United 
States now known as Indian Territory, except so much of the same as is actually 
occupied by the Five Civilized Tribes and the Indian tribes within the Quapaw 
Indian agency and except the unoccupied part of the Cherokee outlet, together with 
that portion of the United States known as the public-land strip, is hereby erected 
into a temporary government by the name of the Territory of Oklahoma. That por- 
tion of the Indian Territory included in said Territory of Oklahoma is bounded by a 
line drawn as follows: 

1 have hung a map on the wall there. The red line is the division 
line, and I will leave out reading the minute description of the bound- 
ary. 

Then, following after the boundary, in the same paragraph, it reads: 

Whenever the interests of the Cherokee Indians in the land known as the Cherokee 
outlet shall have been extinguished, and the President shall make proclamation 
thereof, said outlet shall thereupon, and without further legislation, become a part of 
the Territory of Oklahoma. Any other lands within the Indian Territory not 
embraced within these boundaries shall hereafter become a part of the Territory of 
Oklahoma whenever the Indian nation, or a tribe owning such lands, shall signify to 
the President of the United States in legal manner its assent that such lands shall so 
become a part of the Territory of Oklahoma, and the President shall thereupon make 
proclamation of the same. 

Section 2 provides for the further right of Congress to add to any 
State Oklahoma proper. 

Thus we see by the language of that act and all other acts relating 
to Oklahoma and Indian Territory, that it has been the intention of 
Congress at all times in the past that the original Indian Territory, out 
of which Oklahoma was formed, should eventually become one single 
State as originally outlined by the fathers. And when we view the 
ragged, irregular, eccentric boundary line that now divides the two 
Territories we can not believe that this boundary line was other than 
temporary. 

When the first Oklahoma legislature assembled it adopted the great 
common seal for the new Territory. This design, as shown here on 
page — , General Statutes of Oklahoma, shows after the motto "Labor 
omnia vincet " Columbia as the central figure, representing justice and 
statehood; on her right is the American pioneer farmer; on her left is 
the American Indian. These representatives of the white and red 
races standing there beneath the scales of justice s3^mbolize the 
intended union of Oklahoma and Indian Territory, and is emblematic 
of equal justice to all. Beneath are the words "Grand seal of Okla- 
homa Territory." 

All territorial legislation has been with the intent and expecta- 
tion of the ultimate union of both Territories as a single State. For 
instance, the Territorial University was located at Norman, on the 
banks of the South Canadian River, where said river constitutes a part 
of the boundary line between both Territories. You will see by this 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 29 

map that it is centrall}^ located as to both Territories and is east of a 
large portion of Indian Territory. 

The agricultural and mechanical college at Stillwater is located to 
the north, near the boundary line, and this point will be in the eastern 
half of both Territories wdien united as a State. 

The oldest normal school is located at Edmond, which is yerj near 
the geographical center of both Territories, and at present our laws 
provide for the admission of pupils from the Indian Territory to all 
our Territorial institutions on an equality with our own students. 

I think these facts are entitled to more consideration than the remark 
made by Mr. Clarke that nine-tenths of the people of Oklahoma are 
against single statehood, and I say to you that all men having onh^the 
best interests of our people at heart, and who have given the question 
thought, believe that the idea of forming tAvo States out of these Ter- 
ritories is a visionar}^ theor}^ that is destitute of practical wisdom, as 
it would only tend to waste the energies and dissipate the resources 
of all our people; and that these advocates are men who have allowed 
personal ambition and selfish interests to guide them as against the 
best interests of our people. These separatists offer no argument in 
support of their position not based on sectionalism, party expediency, 
or partisan advantage. They want to do wrong for the sake of party 
policy. Let me saj^ to them that slyij political party that will violate 
its principles and the principles of good government out of policy or 
expediency will alwa3^s pay the debt with sorrow and regret. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I take it that the 
two greatest considerations in the creation of a State are population 
and area. The questions, however, of natural resources and natural 
division should be considered also and given their proper weight. 
Population alone is but one of the considerations entering into the 
question. State sovereignty does not rest on population alone, as in 
the United States Senate neither population, size, nor resources are 
considered. Rhode Island, the smallest State, and Texas with its vast 
domain, there stand upon an equality. Nevada, with only a few thou- 
sand people, and New York, the great Empire State, with its many 
millions of inhabitants, are equal in that branch of the National Gov- 
ernment. And such is the jealousy of the States of their representa- 
tion in the United States Senate that no small State may hope to be 
admitted if it were not for partisan interests. 

Because in the adding of a State to the Union every State gives up 
a part of its influence in all three coordinate branches of the National 
Government. It is an assignment, so to speak, of a part of their 
power and influence in national affairs, each State surrendering its 
proportionate share to the new State. 

A wide discretion is given to Congress b}^ the Constitution in the 
words, "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." 
This, the onl}^ provision of the Constitution upon the subject, leaves 
Congress the sole judge of the expediency of admitting a State into 
the Union. For this reason we must remember that a new State pri- 
marily organized and admitted into the Union for the benefit of its 
own people, is in a large degree for the benefit of the whole people of 
the nation. And a Territor}^ seeking admission ought in population, 
in area, in present and prospective development and intelligence of its 
people be on a par with the average of the other States of the Union, 



6{) STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

thus the equilibrium of the States ma}^ be preserved and maintained in 
the Senate. 

If a Territory falls short of this standard it is unjust to the other 
States to admit it into the Union on a footing of equality. These gen- 
eral principles are fundamental and ought to control. 

On the question of population no one can dispute that the twin Ter- 
ritories united are entitled to statehood under any rule ever suggested 
in Congress, having a population of about 1,400,000 people and enough 
at the taking of the last census to entitle the new State to five Repre- 
sentatives in the House branch of Congress. The first rule regard- 
ing population was set forth in the ordinance of 1787 b}^ the Continen- 
tal Congress creating the Northwest Territory. Article 5 of said ordi- 
nance creating said Northwest Territory provides therein, whenever 
any of the proposed States shall have 60,000 free inhabitants, etc. 

The ordinar}^ and more general rule has been^ — that is, whenever any 
rule was followed — to require a population equal to the unit or ratio 
required in population for one member of Congress. The extreme rule 
was set forth by Senator Dillingham in his argument before the Senate 
upon the omnibus bill. That rule was to require a population which 
would equal the average population of all the States. Yet I believe 
the true rule to be that where a fair number of people demand State 
government there is no just cause for denial, provided the questions 
of area, natural divisions, and natural resources are settled, because 
progress in the development of a Territory's resources is dependent to 
a very great extent upon statehood. This last rule has been the rule 
generally followed by Congress in the admission of new States. 

But even under the harsh rule suggested by Senator Dillingham, 
and which has never heretofore been invoked, Oklahoma and Indian 
Territory united would have the population necessary to fulfill that 
requirement. We would be to-day, if united as a State, ranking as 
the twenty-third State in point of population. We have passed 
Nevada, Alaska, Wyoming, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Delaware, New 
Mexico, Montana, Utah, District of Columbia, North Dakota, Ver- 
mont (^'Indian Territory," '^ Oklahoma Territory"), South Dakota, 
New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Florida, Colo- 
rado, Maine, Connecticut, West Virginia, Nebraska, Maryland, 
Arkansas, South Dakota, Louisiana. 

The above-named States and Territories rank in the order named, 
according to the report of the last census, commencing with the lowest 
in rank. 

Oklahoma and Indian Territory separated rank as 38 and 39, that is, 
between Vermont and South Dakota. 

Mr. Chairman, another matter in connection with the population of 
Oklahoma I wish to call your attention to is the census tables. They 
show a density of population in Oklahoma of 10.3 and the Indian 
Territory of 12.6 persons to the square mile. The opening of the 
Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita reservations to settlement since the 
census was taken would now make our density equal at least to that of 
Indian Territory. The question now arises, What may we expect to 
gain in population in the future? Practically all our Indian reserva- 
tions have now been opened to settlement and our future increase of 
population will be in the ordinary way. 

We find by these tables that Nebraska in 1890 had a densit}^ of pop- 
ulation of 13.8 and in 1900 13.9 persons to the square mile, an increase 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 31 

of only one-tenth of one in ten 3- ears. Kansas had in 1890 a density 
of population of 17.5 and in 1900 18 persons to the square mile, a gain 
in ten yeavs of one-half of one to the square mile; and the tables show 
that even this small gain was made in the manufacturing and mining 
parts of the State, and that there was a decrease in the rural population. 
We find Arkansas had in 1890 a densit}^ of population of 21.3 and in 
1900 21.7 persons to the square mile, a gain of 3.1 persons to the 
square mile, due mostl}^ to the developments of its mineral resources. 
These statistics are significant. It shows that when the population of 
an essential^ farming State reaches a certain densit}^ its future increase 
is slow. However, this is not true in cotton-growing districts of recent 
settlement. The tendenc}^ there is to divide up what ordinarily con- 
stitutes a homestead into small tracts; and in Oklahoma we have a 
large cotton area, but not so great as that in Indian Territor3\ 

The average increase in population in the United States for the 
decade between 1890 and 1900 was 21 per cent. The increase in the 
States of Kansas and Nebraska was only 3 per cent. It can not be 
contended in the light of the census figures that our Territories are 
sparsely settled. As it is we have a greater density of population 
than Nevada, which has 0.4; W3'Oming, 0.9; Idaho, 1.9; Montana, 
1.7; Utah, 3.1; Oregon, 1.1; North Dakota, 1.5; Colorado, 5.2; South 
Dakota, 5.5; Washington, 7.7; California, 9.5, and Florida 9.7 per- 
sons to the square mile. 

In addition to the question of increase, I wish to call the attention of 
the committee to the showing made by the census abstract to show that 
even with all the wonderful and marvelous developments we have had 
in Oklahoma Territory from its opening in 1889 — the first census taken 
in 1890, the last census, upon which these propositions are based, being 
taken in 1900 — that even in those ten years, in that decade, it did not 
have the per cent of increase in population which other States have 
had during that particular period when they were being settled up and 
the lands were being thrown open to settlement; and since that time 
in those States the increase has been slow, Dakota being the highest, 
ranging in the thousands. 

The percentage of increase of Oklahoma for that decade was 107.6, 
the highest of any State or Territory in the Union, the next highest 
increase being the Indian Territory. In the decade between 1880 and 
1890 the percentage of increase in the State of North Dakota was 
1,131.7. I simply call the attention of the committee to this as against 
the statement of Mr. Clarke that no such increase as that of Oklahoma 
was ever known before. 

In the State of South Dakota for that decade the per cent of increase 
was 731.5. In Colorado it was 387.5. 

And so on, gentlemen. You may view these tables and you will 
find that when a country has been opened to settlement under the 
beneficent provisions of the homestead act, the increase is always mar- 
velous, but we should not base the per cent of increase when those 
conditions are existing upon that which we may in prospect expect to 
have and continue in the future. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the next greatest 
consideration involves the question of area. Oklahoma alone has an 
area of 38,830 square miles. Indian Territorj^ has an area of 31,000 
square miles. Both Territories united as a single State its area would 
be 69,830 square miles, which is about one-fourth the size of Texas 



32 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

and much less than one-half the size of California or Montana. It 
would still be the smallest State west of the Mississippi River, with 
the exception of Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas, whose areas are 
approximate^ the same as the new State would be. The gross area 
of the United States, including five continental Territories, is 3,616,-i8J: 
square miles, and the average area of the 50 States and Territories 
is 72,330 square miles. The average area of the 15 States alone 
is about 62,000 square miles. This would leave the proposed State 
about 8,000 square miles above the present average; but when 
New Mexico, Arizona, and our Territories united are admitted as 
three more States the average area will then be but little less than the 
area of this proposed State. United as a single State we would have 
a less area than the following-named States and Territories, whose 
areas are as follows: 

Square miles. 

Texas 265, 780 

California 158, 360 

Montana 146, 080 

New Mexico 122, 580 

Arizona 113, 020 

Nevada „ 110, 700 

Colorado 103, 925 

Wyoming 97,890 

Oregon 96,030 

Utah 84,970 

Idaho 84, 800 

Minnesota 83, 365 

Kansas 82, 080 

South Dakota 77,650 

Nebraska 77, 510 

North Dakota 70, 795 

And we would almost exactly equal Missouri's area — 69,415 square 
miles — and Washington with 69,180 square miles. We would still have 
a much smaller area than any State north, south, or west of us. 

Mr. Clarke called your attention to the average area of States east 
of the Mississippi River. As these Territories are west of said river 
I think it more logical to make the comparison with the average area 
of the 19 States west of the Mississippi River, which is 96,691 square 
miles, an average of 28,000 square miles more than both Territories 
united would be. 

For statistical purposes there have been defined five geographical 
divisions of the States and Territories, known as the North Atlantic, 
South Atlantic, North Central, South Central, and Western divisions. 
The South Central division includes Oklahoma and Indian Territories 
and the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisi- 
ana, Texas, and Arkansas, the average area of the States in this 
division being 78,837 square miles. The average area of the States of 
the North Central division composed of the following States: Ohio, 
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, 
North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas, is 61,000 square 
miles. The average area of the States of the Western division com- 
posed of the following States: Montana, W3^oming, Colorado, New 
Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and 
California, is 108,000 square miles. 

So when we examine these figures of the area of other States I take 
it to be a self-evident fact that in the matter of area it is absolutely 
necessary to unite these two Territories as a State in order that the 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 33 

new State may compare favorabl}^ with other States in the matter of 
area, and 1 think it would be the part of wisdom and statesmanship to 
do so; for this reason alone the fathers of this countr}^ made a rule 
for our guidance in this the first rule ever made regarding the area 
of new States. It is set forth in the ordinance of 1787 creating the 
Northwest Territory. 

The average area of the five States created out of the Northwest 
Territories is 50,000 square miles, as upon the admission of said States 
it was deemed wise to follow natural boundaries, and a large portion of 
the Northwest Territory was afterwards included in Minnesota to give 
it an outlet on Lake Superior sufficient to make the average of the five 
States contemplated by the ordinance to be 70,000 square miles. I 
ask you, has any man ever doubted or questioned the wisdom and 
statesmanship of the fathers who formulated that ordinance? Of the 
thirteen original States five of them had areas approximating the ter- 
ritories united. They are as follows: 

Georgia 59, 475 

New York 49, 1 70 

North Carolina 52, 250 

Pennsylvania 45, 215 

Virginia 67,230 

And 1 might sa}^ the State of Massachusetts, which then included 
not only the present State, but also the State of Maine, would make 
that State average as then existing almost the same as the two Terri- 
tories. The State was afterwards divided for reasons with which the 
committee is familiar. You all know that Maine and Massachusetts 
were separated by the State of New Hampshire, and it was deemed to 
be against public policy to have a State formed out of two distinct and 
separated areas of territory. 

Mr. Spalding. From what States is the bulk of 3^our immigration 
coming now? 

Mr. DoTLE. From every State in the Union. The bulk at this time 
is coming from Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, and 
Kansas. 

Mr. Spalding. And is it the same as to the Indian Territory ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir; absolutely. I will say to you, in answer to 
that question, that the class of men who are coming there at this time 
are men who are taking advantage of the high prices of land in the 
States that they come from — Iowa, a great many from Minnesota and 
Nebraska — and have come there and have bought large tracts of land. 
That is the class of citizens that is coming from the North. I notice 
b}^ a local paper this week that at least 7,000 came in on the excursion 
dates of this month. 

Mr. Howe. A large portion of them from Illinois. 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir; they are that class of men who have taken 
advantage of the high prices ofiered for land in those States and come 
to our Territories, where they can get more land cheaper for their boys 
and other members of their families. 

Thus it will be seen that these Territories united fulfill everv require- 
ment on the question of area and natural division. Mr. Clarke says 
they have been divided on geographical lines by the organic act. You 
have heard read the provisions of the organic act and which, as a 
matter of fact, provides for their union and not division. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in answer to Mr. 

OKLA 3 



34 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Clarke's statement I ask you to look at this map. Oklahoma alone 
there has the shape and outline of an Indian reservation or a Spanish 
land grant. The dividing- line between the Territories looks like a 
Chinese letter. Irregular and unnatural in outline and misshapen in 
form are both Territories, separated even more so than those States 
whose boundaries were fixed in an unknown country b}^ the charter 
acts of the English Crown. 

Both Territories united would form a magnificent State, symmetri- 
cal in form and outline, and harmonizing in area, form, and outline 
with all the neighboring States. 

Mr. Chairman, looking at that map of both Territories vou see the 
majestic rivers which flow across Oklahoma eastward to their conflu- 
ences with the great Arkansas River in the eastern part of Indian 
Territory. Here is the South Canadian, the North Canadian, the Deep 
Fork, the Cimarron, the Salt Fork, and the Arkansas rivers, and you 
see that they in their course flow eastward across both Territories and 
seem like ties binding them together. Their fertile valle3\s, commenc- 
ing in the eastern part of Indian Territory, extend westward across 
both Territories, and the same may be said of the Washita River and 
the great Red River, which forms the southern boundary line of both 
Territories. 

No geographical reason of an}' kind can be urged against the union 
of these Territories as a State, but all natural conditions prove the 
wisdom of the fathers when they defined the boundaries of the original 
Indian Territorv. I ask you gentlemen to study well this map, as it is 
one of the strongest arguments in favor of our position — that is, for 
one State. 

This map also shows a veritable network of railways interwoven 
east and west and north and south across both Territories. Six great 
trunk lines, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe and the Chicago, Rock 
Island and Pacific cross both Territories from north to south, and St. 
Louis and San Francisco; Missouri, Kansas and Texas; C. O. & G., 
and the Fort Smith and Western cross them from east to west. All 
these roads have numerous branch lines, and in addition the Indian 
Territor}' has the Missouri Pacific and Kansas City Southern, and 
Oklahoma has the Orient, D. E. & G., and G. and Elreno. The bound- 
ar}^ between Oklahoma and Indian Territory is crossed b}' railwa3^s in 
sixteen places, and there has never been an acre of land granted to 
secure these railroads. 

Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, no man thinks 
more highly than I do of Oklahoma Territory, her people, and her 
natural advantages, such as a fertile soil, and a climate, which is the 
finest in the world. There, fanned by gentle zephyrs and clothed in 
the sheen of eternal spring, is a country where honest industr}' is sure 
to receive its just reward. But, in the consideration of the further 
question of our natural resources, I must sa}^ that Oklahoma alone 
has not that diversity of resources that is necessary and essential for a 
State. It is principally a prairie country, some timber, and no min- 
eral to speak of, devoted chieflj^ to agriculture and stock raising. In 
this matter of natural resources and climate the Indian Territory is 
the perfect complement of Oklahoma. 

It has forests as valuable as any State in this Union, and mineral 
wealth as great as that which has given Penns3dvania precedence as 
a manufacturing State. The splendid natural resources of Indian 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 35 

Territory need the aid of Oklahoma in their development. What 
Oklahoma lacks in order to hecome an industrially and productiveh' 
powerful and prosperous State is entireh' made up and supplied by 
the Indian Territory. By combining the two we get in wealth and 
resources a perfect State — agricultural, stock raising, lumbering, and 
mining — all that is needed for the development of an ideal common- 
wealth. All the resources of these two Territories combined ought to 
be utilized for one great State and for one people. Surely in this we 
find a strong argument for their union. That would give us physical 
advantages the equal of any State. The vast beds of coal in the Indian 
Territory are inexhaustable. It has vast undeveloped iron mines, it 
has the finest asphalt mines in the world, and large fields of natural 
gas and oil. The coal supply of Oklahoma is received from the Indian 
Territor3\ 

It is essential to eveiy industr}' in Oklahoma, from our steam thresh- 
ing machines to our flouring mills, for our factories and in all lines 
where steam power is used, and also for cheapness of fuel in our 
homes, that we should be united with the Indian Territory as one 
State, in order that proper legislation may be had to protect our peo- 
ple from any unfair discrimination by the railroads in the carrying of 
this and other products. Then the State would have the power within 
itself to regulate that trafiic, but if you separate these Territories and 
make two States then the control of each is limited, because under the 
Federal Constitution each State can onh' control and regulate the rail- 
road traffic w^hich is entireh^ local within the State itself, beginning 
and ending there, and that trafiic which naturall}^ will be carried on 
between the two States will be subject onl}' to the provision of the 
interstate-commerce law, and subject only to Federal control instead 
of State control. Surely no man should want to see our industries 
crippled and our people and our resources placed at such a disadvan- 
tage, which would be the case if Oklahoma and the Indian Territory 
were separate States. 

Oklahoma, united with the Indian Territory as a State, will have the 
essential and necessary diversity of resources in addition to the rich- 
ness and fertility of Oklahoma's prairies. 

Great manufacturing cities are growing in the neighborhood of the 
inexhaustible coal fields of the Indian Territory. A large part of 
said coal lands are soon to be sold under the provisions of a recent act 
of Congress. 

We have in Oklahoma several fine cities near the border of the 
Indian Territory, Oklahoma City being the largest. In these cities is 
where the wholesale, jobbing, and manufacturing interests and the 
financial and commercial interests of both Territories are centering. 
The union of the Territories as a State will tend in ever}' wa}' to make 
within the borders of the new State several great cities, where wealth, 
one of the considerations in the creation of a State, will center. 

All the trade relations, commercial intercourse, and business inter- 
ests of both Territories require that they be united: all business asso- 
ciations cover both Territories. The bankers' association, which is 
composed of representative bankers of both Territories, indorsed single 
statehood at their last annual convention. A people whose industrial 
and commercial life is so interwoven and so naturally assimilated as 
is the people of these Territories should not be separated, and the good 



36 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

sense and practical judgment of all our people realize this when they 
ask that single statehood shall be provided. 

Mr. Chairman, by the union of these Territories as one State it will 
relieve the people of great burdens of taxation. We all know that it 
is nearly as expensive to conduct the government of a small State as it 
is of a large State. The two Territories united under one State gov- 
ernment would probabl}" save half the expense that would be involved 
in the maintenance of them as separate States. Now, it is for the 
interests of the taxpayers to have a State of good fair size, not only 
to have a State possessed of all the natural resources necessary to make 
a prosperous State, but it is also in the interests of the people of the 
State to have it of such a character that the cost of its government will 
not be a serious burden upon the people. 

Mr. Chairman, united our Territories possess all the attributes of an 
ideal Commonwealth. We will have all that goes to make up a pow- 
erful and prosperous State. We will be a State that in population, 
area, form, and natural resources can compare favorabl}^ with all other 
States. Then we will have those honorable feelings of State pride that 
are prompted by patriotism, public virtue, and intelligence in the minds 
of all residents of a great and powerful State. Ever}^ consideration of 
sound public policy, both as to the welfare of the nation as well as for 
the best interests of both Territories, demands that they should be 
united as a single State. 

And let me say to you, gentlemen of the committee, that while men 
have made comparisons betw^een conditions existent in Oklahoma and 
Indian Territory and Arizona and New Mexico, they are absolutely 
different in every respect. One is the antithesis of the other. All 
lines of legislation have been for the separation of New Mexico and 
Arizona. All geographical lines favor their separation. Each is on 
one side of the great Kocky Mountain divide, and every condition 
incident to the creation of large commonwealths upon the frontier of 
our country would demand that they be separated. Legislation has 
been in that line. Public policy would demand, as a matter of fact, 
that they should continue to be separated, but public policy demands 
and all legislation has been with that intent, both national and local, 
that Oklahoma and Indian Territor}^ should be united. Indian Terri- 
tory has never been granted a single attribute of autonom3^ 

It has been there upon the map, possibly a blot upon the civiliza- 
tion of this countrj^, by reason of its political serfdom, with 700,000 
people — and that is the most recent report of the most authoritative 
body, the report of the Dawes Commission, tiled this past week with the 
President, placing the population at 700,000 people entirely governed b}^ 
the executive department of this Government. It has no legislative 
power in any way and no local laws other than by Congress enacted inci- 
dental to emergencies and exigencies that have arisen there. On the 
other hand, Oklahoma Territory has its autonomy. It has been 
recognized by the provisions of the organic act which I have read to 
you and given a constrained political existence, such as a Territorj^ 
may have. Several provisions of the Constitution have been extended 
over it, but in all those articles and in the subsequent acts of Congress 
they follow the one idea, that eventually the Indian Territor}^ shall be 
added before they ma}^ hope to become one of the sisterhood of States. 

The Chairman. Can you give the committee, Mr. Doyle, some of 



* ^^ STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 37 

the details of government of the Indian Territory, as you hav^e 
described it? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Go into detail somewhat in that line. 

Mr. Doyle. 1 want to ssi}\ in answer to that, Mr. Chairman, that 
the most degraded political existence that is know^n to the English- 
speaking race is found in the Indian Territor3\ Their condition is 
that of political slaver}^ They have not that much voice in their 
public affairs and in the administration of the law in that part of the 
United States as have the recently conquered Boer provinces of South 
Africa. Under that system of governing 700,000 people by the 
Executive branch of the Government as it sees fit, they have no voice 
even in the selection of an officer such as constable. Recently Con- 
gress has allowed them a school system in the various towns. They 
vote and select their school boards under that act of Congress; but 
even that particular branch is under an appointee of the Executive 
Department here who stands in the relation of what in a State would 
be a State superintendent of public instruction. 

The Chairman. What provision have the}^ for the maintenance of 
order ? 

Mr. Doyle. In regard to the maintenance of order, the act of Con- 
gress describes and defines certain acts of the code of Arkansas and 
certain parts of the law of Arkansas that are made operative in that 
particular part of the countr}^ to be administered b}" men upon the 
bench in the capacity of United States judges by their appointees in 
each recording district, in the capacity of a United States court com- 
missioner; and when I speak of those courts I mean not the regular 
Federal courts, but United States courts for that specific purpose. 

The Chairman. Then the constabularj^ is appointed? 

Mr. Doyle. The commissioner in each district has the right to 
appoint a constable. The United States executive department appoints 
a marshal for each of four districts in the Indian Territor}^; that is, 
a United States marshal for each judicial district, with all the powers 
that an ordinary marshal has in a United States Federal district sub- 
division of a State. 

The Chairman. And the sheriff of a State? 

Mr. Doyle. And the sheriff' of a State — the dual powers. 

Mr. Thayer. Do you think people who have been as unfortunate 
as you represent these people to be are up to the standard of statehood? 

Mr. Doyle. I wish to sa}^ to 3^ou in answer to that, Mr. Tha3^er, that 
I do not believe a better people ever populated a State; that those 
people come there more legitimately in every respect than the people 
who landed upon the shores of Massachusetts 20 or 30 miles from 
where you and I were born; that the}^ come there with every right 
in ever}^ respect better than the just settlers upon the Delaware, the 
Hudson, or here upon the Potomac. They went there upon the express 
invitation of the Indians. They went there under the provisions of 
the Curtis Act — that is, the great majority of them — w^hich provided 
for the sale of the various town sites throughout the Indian Territory. 
The}^ went there according to the acts of Congress that provided for 
the selection and leasing of the various coal, asphalt, and other mineral 
lands in that countiy. 

Certainly it was not contemplated by Congress that when those acts 



38 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

were passed the development of that country should be carried out 
b}'- the native Indians alone. I want to say to 3^ou, Mr. Thayer, that 
in so far as the Indian part is concerned they have always had local 
self -government, and, as a rule, there is but a tincture of Indian blood 
in the greatest percentage of what constitutes the Five Tribes — just 
a trace. They were civilized before the}^ left the States of Alabama 
and Georgia. They have maintained those tribal governments repub- 
lican in form. They have had a code of laws in each of those five 
districts; and while it might be said that under their local govern- 
ments they become arbitrary and corrupt in every respect, and the 
existing need for the Curtis and other bills which followed became 
absolute b}' reason of the fact that although they in their code invited 
originally those white men there, they made no provisions in regard 
to the white population living among them. 

Mr. Thayer. State whether they are, on the whole, a self -restrained 
people and would govern themselves well? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. I say to you that I believe when a man stands 
up, as Mr. Clarke did here, and pictured those people as lawbreakers 
and outlaws, and said the}^ were represented by such a type of people 
as Bill Starr and Cherokee Bill, as he did, he does it w^ithout any rea- 
son of any kind or character. They have as beautiful cities as there 
are in any part of the West. You find the American home in every 
one of the four hundred towns in the Indian Territor3^ You find men 
just as brainy in every respect, following the profession of the law 
before those courts as we do in your State of Massachusetts. You 
find a class of merchants there that are equal to any people. You see 
them here among you as they come before this committee. 

The}?- are representative; and it is attempted simpl}^ by sophistry to 
have you believe that crime is rampant in that country simply because, 
under the system of laws that govern it under the executive adminis- 
tration of affairs there, the Government of the United States prose- 
cutes every crime from a simple assault and the use of profane lan- 
guage clear up to the highest degree of murder. Those matters here 
in Washington are subject to the police power. Every State delegates 
those trifling matters to its municipal bodies within its own borders. 
In making that computation they counted everything, from the giving 
an Indian a glass of whisk}^ clear up to introducing and disposing. 
Those are the two crimes incidental to the whisky business there, and 
the}^ comprise almost one-half of the whole per cent that he (Mr. 
Clarke) speaks of. 

The Chairman. What are the provisions for public instruction? 

Mr. Doyle. The provision for public instruction is just a recent 
one. It provides that each of those municipalities shall elect a board 
of education; that the}^ shall have the right to tax all property within 
the bounds of that municipal corporation for the support of the schools. 

The Chairman. What municipalities do you refer to? 

Mr. Doyle. I refer to every municipality in the Indian Territory 
and there is a limit as to the incorporated towns. The limit of incor- 
poration, I believe, is when they exceed 200. I will ask Mr. Howe 
about that. 

Mr. Howe. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Under what law are these towns incorporated? 

Mr. Doyle. Under the Curtis Act and Arkansas statute. 

Mr. Thayer. I understand you are at a disadvantage with other 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 39 

Territories; for instance, New Mexico. Wlierein do you think New 
Mexico is treated better than the Indian Territory at presents 

Mr. Doyle. New Mexico for fifty j^ears has had a political exist- 
ence. The}^ have been allowed to have a legislative assembly that 
provides its laws. That assembly, in the past fifty years, in its wis- 
dom, has provided all the institutions incidental to a State. They have 
a beautiful State capitol building, they have a penitentiary. They 
have all the higher educational institutions that any State may have, 
and possibl}^ one or two more, including a school of mines and a school 
of science. The Indian Territory has no law-making body. Towns 
can not pass ordinances covering the ordinar}^ misdemeanors, which is a 
power that the ordinary city is granted by every State government to 
control. 

Even the violation of what would constitute an ordinance in a little 
cit}^ or village is there prosecuted in the Federal court, and for that 
reason the Federal courts are behind in their work and can not reach the 
cases that should be reached. There is no provision of law for appeals 
in criminal cases in an3^way there. So far as New Mexico is con- 
cerned, it has all those provisions, subject only to the will of Con- 
gress, which has the right to nullify any act, whether it be valid under 
existing law or not, or which has the right to make valid any law on 
their part that would be ultra vires under the law. 

Mr. Thayer. I had supposed something in that line. Now, ought 
3^ou not to walk before you run ? Would it not be well if j^our Terri- 
tories there were put on an equality with these other Territories before 
they demand admittance to statehood in connection with Oklahoma? 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Thayer, I do not think 3^ou were here when I made 
my opening argument. I will repeat the burden of it as to the capa- 
bility of our people or the people of the Indian Territory for self- 
government. 

1 wish to sa}^ in regard to that that I might, with propriety, quote 
the language of Daniel Webster, as I can do in substance. In that 
great oration that he delivered here where we now are on the 4th day 
of July, 1851, on the occasion of the dedication of the East Wing of 
this Capitol building. Speaking generall}^ in regard to the American 
people and their capabilit}^ of self-government, and particularly as to 
the people of the State of California, who had shortly before organized 
their State government, he pointed to it as an illustration of what had 
there been proven and what all Americans believe, and that is that 
wherever a large body of Americans go into a communit}^ or a country 
they carry with them the instinct and knowledge of self-government — 
the teachings of their 3^outh and their experience in the exercise of that 
function — and the consequence is that to whatever region an American 
citizen carries himself he takes with him fully developed in his own 
understanding and experience our American principles and opinions, 
and becomes ready at once, in operation with others, to appl}^ them to 
the formation of new governments. Of this a most wonderful instance 
is seen in the history of California, and that the}" are full}^ capable in 
every respect of self-government. 

That is his language; and I say to you that that population in the 
Indian Territory now, which has come there, practically all of it, since 
the passage of the Curtis bill in 1898 — the increase has been more than 
100 per cent since that time — are people that are born, bred, and 
reared to all the conditions incidental to self-government. The}^ have 
exercised that function in the other States. I will say that a large 



40 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

part of that population are Union soldiers, men who went out and 
f ought in defense of their country. You see their snow-white heads in 
every g-athering of a public character. The}^ are living in that particu- 
lar communit}^ No period of probation is necessary for that class of 
people, any more than it would be for the Indians, who have for a 
hundred years, in their minor governments, exercised the right of self- 
government. 

The Chairman. Mr. Doyle, the committee will have to rise now. 
We will continue the hearing at a later date, to be fixed by the com- 
mittee. 

The committee thereupon adjourned, subject to call. 



January 28, 1904. 
STATEMEIfT OF THOMAS H. DOYLE— Eesumed. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, to 
epitomize my remarks as made here on Tuesda}', I take the position 
that every consideration of public policj^ in this nation demands that 
both these Territories should be united as one State in order that the 
equilibrium of the States may be maintained in the Senate. The area 
of each, separate, is diminutive in comparison with the other States of 
that particular section of the country. The other ground was that all 
legislation, both Congressional and legislative, in the Oklahoma part of 
the proposed State has been with that intent, anticipating the ultimate 
purpose of Congress to unite both as one State; that eveiy geographical 
consideration demands that they both be united, as the river valleys 
and watersheds extend east and west and the division of both on the 
present line would be unnatural; that we are entirely different in everj^ 
respect from the ■ situation of New Mexico and Arizona, they being 
each on opposite sides of the Continental Divide, and all legislation for 
the past fifty years has been with the intent and purpose of creating 
them as separate Commonwealths. 

As to the proposition advanced by the young man, Mr. Geissler, 
that it would be contrary to the intent and purpose of the treaties, 
he says the moral phase of the question is such that Congress can not 
at this time unite both Territories. I say the Robinson bill and the 
Qua}^ bill both by their provisions do not take effect until the expira- 
tion of the last remaining vestage of the five Indian tribal govern- 
ments. The Curtis Act provides that they shall be determined for all 
time on the 4th day of March, 1906. I take the position that the time 
is now opportune to anticipate, with a million and a half of people, 
under the conditions existing in that Territory. 

It is absolutely necessary to have a proper presentation of the 
questions that will be submitted by the constitutional assembty that 
will convene under the provisions of this act, and at least five or six 
months is necessary, because all statehood bills provide that all State 
officers, including members of Congress and members of the first 
legislative assembly of the State and its judiciar}?^, as provided for in 
the constitution, shall be elected at the time that the constitution, its 
provisions and ordinances, are submitted to the people for their rati- 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 4l 

fication. Five months is the usual time of the ordinary political cam- 
paign, and the provisions of the Robinson bill are, that immediately 
following the meeting of the next Territorial legislature the constitu- 
tional assembly shall convene. Then, holding the election a ye&r from 
the next general election day gives only about four to live months for 
the propor presentation of these questions to the people. 

On the question of the Indian treaties I want to say it is a very 
peculiar position these gentlemen take. The Indian treaties they refer 
to cover not only the present Indian Territory, but every portion of 
Oklahoma Territory with the exception of No Man's Land, now 
Beaver Count}", that was added in 1890. You all know the history of 
it. It v/as a part of Texas, and was left out under the provisions of 
the admission of Texas whereby the north line was fixed by the 
question of slavery or freedom. Texas waived its right under its 
compact to all part of the territory north of what now constitutes 
the south line of Beaver County, the line fixed by the Missouri com- 
promise. It was called No Man's Land until organized and admitted 
as a part of Oklahoma Territor3^ It has only a trifle over 3,000 
people, although it is almost 6,000 square miles, one-sixth of the 
entire Territory. 

Mr. McGuiRE. You say it has only 3,000 people? 

Mr. Doyle. A trifle over 3,000 people, according to the last census. 

Mr. McGuiRE. It has quadrupled since that time? 

Mr. Doyle. I hope so. It ought to. It is a good countrv, a good 
deal like New Mexico. It adjoins Ncav Mexico. 

A Member. The land just opposite to that country, in New Mexico, 
is turning out to be some of our finest farming land. 

Mr. Doyle. Those treaties were abrogated b}" the opening up of 
the original Oklahoma, and prior to that time b}^ establishing a United 
States court by act of Congress that year covering both Territores. 
The opening of original Oklahoma, amounting to 3,000,000 acres, being 
one-half of what constituted the Creek country, was an abrogation of 
those treaties. The opening of the Cherokee Strip in 1893 and all the 
other acts of reservation that have been mentioned b}" me in my pre- 
liminary remarks are in abrogation of those treaties. 

The Curtis Act entirely abrogated every provision of those treaties. 
That was the act of 1898. It provided for the abolishing of the 
tribal governments; it provided for town sites within that country; it 
provided for courts within that country. Its provisions abolished the 
Indian courts then and there and for all time. They have had no 
courts since the passage of that act. 

Mr. Howe. And since that time the}" have all made treaties with 
the Government ratifying those provisions? 

Mr. Doyle. They have been ratified and accepted by those people, 
and the lands of the tribes that at that time were held in common have 
been allotted to the various members of the tribe. The allotment has 
been completed entirely in the case of the Seminoles and Creeks and 
practically completed in the other three nations. It will be completed, 
according to the report of the Dawes Commission and their estimate, 
before any statehood bill could possibly take efiiect; and provisions 
for the alienation of those lands, all except a homestead to each Indian, 
are contained in those acts of Congress. 

Gentlemen, I want to read to you on this question that seems to be 
controverted the attitude of our people, from the house journal, the 



42 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

veto message of Governor Barnes vetoing the bill providing for the 
organization of Oklahoma as a State council, bill No. 54, which was 
introduced and fathered b}^ my friend, Senator Havens. I was a 
member of the assembly at that time and I distinctly remember it. I 
want to read this to show what Governor Barnes said at that time. 
He was a Republican, and I desire to say preliminary to that, while the 
Democratic and Populist parties have stood for single statehood — that 
is, the union of both Territories as one State, the Republican party has 
never favored statehood for Oklahoma alone. It has simply straddled. 
Mr. McGuire will tell you, and I will read to you before I conclude 
m}^ argument the paragraph contained in the Republican platform, 
that it simply has said '' We want statehood with such conditions and 
additions as Congress in its wisdom deems best and sees fit to give us." 
That is practically what it said. 

Governor Barnes, in vetoing the bill of Mr. Havens, a gentleman 
who will appear before j^ou asking for Statehood for Oklahoma alone, 
said this, on page 1085 of the council journal for the Territory of Okla- 
homa, 1889: 

GuTHEiE, Okla., March 9, 1899. 
To the Honorable Council of the fifth Legislative Assembly. 

Gentlemen: I believe that the people of Oklahoma desire statehood in the Amer- 
ican Union, because it is the highest and best form of free government known to the 
children of men, and I am in hearty sympathy with this desire and purpose; but I 
do not believe, ail things considered, that the enactment of this bill into a law would 
advance the interests of Oklahoma toward the fruition of our hopes one iota. No sin- 
cere man will for a moment contend the statement that a State government would 
be much more expensive to maintain than is our present Territorial government. 
The expenses of a State government must be borne by taxation of the property of 
the people, and the people of Oklahoma who pay the taxes are not in condition nor do 
they wish to assume any additional burdens of that characier. 

It is true that our people have been generally prosperous for tlie past few years, 
but it is as Avell for those who have in keeping the welfare of the State as it is for the 
individual to consider carefully the result of any proposed enterprise before taking 
a step that will incur any additional obligations. We should not forget that Okla- 
homa is in some respects as 3^et an experiment. We might have a recurrence of the 
dry seasons of 1894 and 1895. This bill provides for the holding of two special elec- 
tions, the expenses of which must be borne by the several counties. This, added 
to the expense of the proposed constitutional convention, will amount in the aggre- 
gate to not less than |40,000 and perhaps to as much as $60,000. This expenditure 
should not be made unless w^e are sure of receiving therefor a corresponding benefit. 

The recent action of Congress, refusing to ratify treaties with the Cherokees and 
Creeks, pledging the United States to a policy of continued separation of the two 
Territories, is significant to the thoughtful mind and indicates a settled and well 
determined purpose in the minds of Senators and Representatives never to admit 
Oklahoma and the Indian Territory as two States, and I feel sure that the ultimate 
destiny of the two Territories is that of single statehood. This being true, to hold a 
constitutional convention at this time to form a constitution for Oklahoma upon the 
lines laid down in this bill would not advance the matter in the slightest degree, 
but on the contrary would retard and hinder the growth of a healthful political sen- 
timent in the Indian Territory in favor of such a union. With the Indian Territory 
incorporated with Oklahoma as one single State we will i)lace a star on the flag of 
our country whose luster would not be dimmed by the constellation of magnificent 
States by which we are surrounded. 

Our varied resources of timber, mineral, agricultural, and grazing lands would for- 
ever furnish the necessary supplies to pay the expenses of a first-class State govern- 
ment and enable us to build and maintain penal, reformatory, and eleemosynary 
Institutions that w^ould compare favorably with those of the most advanced and 
progressive people, and all without the people who must always pay the taxes for 
the support of the government feeling in the slightest degree the burden of excessive 
demand by the tax gatherers. On the other hand, Oklahoma with her resources 
restricted to agriculture and the raising of cattle, without the hope of even of the 
development of coal and other minerals in paying quantities or the development of 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 43 

manufacturing industries, would be but a weak and feeble commonwealth in the 
great sisterhood of States. 

We have never yet raised a revenue in any one year sufficient to pay the running 
expenses of our Territorial government, and a casual deficit has been steadily increas- 
ing year by year. By reason of the Federal limitations upon our debt-creating 
power and by reason of a careful and economical administration of Territorial laws, 
aided in no small degree by the General Government, which pays a large share now 
of our governmental expenses, we have been able to maintain the credit and good 
name of our Territory. Our taxable valuation, placed last year at about 140,000,000, 
was the subject of much criticism by the people, and the very first bill passed by the 
honorable House of Representatives of your honorable body was to reduce said 
valuation to $32,000,000. I assume, therefore, that the people do not wish to incur 
the expenses of these elections and holding a constitutional convention without 
better prospects of ameliorating the condition of affairs than this measure seems to 
offer. I therefore feel constrained to return council bill No. 47, being "An act pro- 
viding for the formation of a constitution and State government for t'le State of 
Oklahoma" to the honorable council in which it originated without my approval. 
Very respectfully, 

C. M. Barnes, Governor. 

Mr. McGuiRE. May I ask a question, Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Do you remember what the complexion of the leg- 
islature was at that time ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir; 1 w^as a member of it. The Republicans had 
six majorit}^ in the lower house. In the upper house the Democrats 
had one majorit}^, and Senator Havens and Senator Clark were both 
members of it. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Notwithstanding that veto message, a bill looking 
to statehood for Oklahoma was passed by both those houses? 

Mr. Doyle. It was, as amended. 

Mr. McGuiRE. It was passed b}" Democrats and Republicans? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes; I voted for that bill, and for one whole day I 
urged an amendment providing for the addition of the Indian Terri- 
tory. 

Mr. McGuiRE. But the bill passed looking to statehood for Okla- 
homa? 

Mr. Doyle. With the Indian Territor^^ to be added if Congress, in 
its wisdom, accepted an enabling act. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Just in the line of this bill ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir; except that no State officials should be 
elected until Congress fixed our boundaries. 

Mr. Clark. Is the gentleman sure of that? 

Mr. Doyle. That is my memory of it, sir. I distinctly remember 
it in every waj^ 

The Chairman. Senator Clark, if you desire to submit any questions 
to Mr. Doyle along that line I think the committee would be perf ectl}^ 
willing to have you do so. 

Mr. Clark. 1 do not desire to enter into any brief discussion. 

Mr. Doyle. I am going to read a bill that Mr. Clarke himself intro- 
duced. I was reading as to the fifth assembly. I want to read now as 
to the sixth. The views of the people of Oklahoma Territory were 
expressed in this matter in every way, so far as the public voice may 
be expressed, and not founded on partisan or sectional reasons in 
favor of a single State. I believe the assembty of Oklahoma Terri- 
toiy, when it convenes, is probabl}^ the most representative body that, 
under our conditions there, can convene; and I desire to read to 3"0u 
now from the session laws of 1901, two years later than the session that 



44 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

I have referred to, joint resolution No. 2, as I remember, introduced 
b}^ Mr. Clarke. 

Mr. Thayer. I do not know that I quite understood what you read 
from the veto of the governor. He vetoed a bill making Oklahoma 
alone a State, and afterwards I understood you to say it was amended 
so as to unite the Indian Territory. What became of that bill? 

Mr. Doyle. It was amended before it went to him. 

Mr. Thayer. He vetoed it after it was amended ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes; that is my memory of it. The bill was amended 
in the house. 

Mr. Thayer. I thought his argument seemed to run toward the 
statehood of Oklahoma alone. 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir; that is the sense of that argument as made 
there. The bill provided for the admission of Oklahoma alone. 

Mr. Lille Y. It passed over his veto, did it not? 

Mr. Doyle. No, sir. 

Mr. Lilley. Not as amended? 

Mr. Doyle. No, sir. 

Mr. Thayer. What 1 ^vant to get at is this: That argument in the 
veto was to the effect that the governor did not think they ought to 
have Oklahoma alone as a State. I understand Mr. Doyle to say that 
the proposition that was before him w^as not to make Oklahoma a State 
alone, but Oklahoma and Indian Territory. Therefore I fail to see 
the logic of the governor's position. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, before I proceed I desire to sa}^, in 
answer to that proposition — that is, the provision of the McGuire bill^ 
that Senator Clarke quoted in his argument to this committee, that it 
is know^n throughout our country as the piecemeal-absorption clause. 

It provides that after Oklahoma Territory has been organized under 
its provisions Congress ma}" in its wisdom add the Indian Territory, 
as a whole or b}^ piecemeal. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the 
committee, that bill, in that particular provision and in one or two 
others to which I wish to call your attention, is absolutely and essen- 
tialh^ vicious, both as a matter of law and as a matter of policy. As 
a matter of law it contravenes the provision of the Constitution of the 
United States which provides the manner in which the boundaries of 
a State may be changed. Section 3, Article IV, of the Constitution — 
the only provision of the Constitution for the change of boundaries of 
a State — provides that the boundaries of any State or States can not 
be changed except b}" the express consent of Congress and by the 
legislative assembly of the State affected. It says nothing about 
a constitutional assembh^ As a matter of law constitutional assembly 
and legislative assembly are not synonj'^mous in any sense. The one 
is a gathering of the representatives of the people to formulate the 
organic law; the other is the regular lawmaking body as formed 
under the constitution of the State; and that provision as a matter of 
law contravenes the Constitution. 

As a matter of policy it is absolutely unjust and unfair. It vio- 
lates every principle of justice. It is an insult to the citizenship and 
to the manhood of the people of Oklahoma Territory. The people of 
that Territory, in appearing before the Congress of the United States 
demanding and asking and praying for their rights, do not want to be 
put in the position of a people who, in asking what is justly theirs, 
seek at the same time to ask and demand that an absolute injustice 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 45 

shall be perpetrated on a similar body of people, their neighbors, and 
connected with them by all ties. Every fraternal organization in 
both Territories is organized under one jurisdiction. Every church 
organization in those Territories is organized under one jurisdiction. 
All business and trade relations are interwoven to the same degree 
as that of the people of any one State; and to sa}^ that as a matter of 
policy the people of our Territory should ask and demand that the 
Indian Territory be denied its just rights, its sacred rights, so to 
speak, and be compelled to come and live within the boundaries of a 
State where the}^ absolutely have had no voice in any way in the for- 
mation of its constituent law, where, according to the methods that 
control all people, probably our people would take advantage of the 
situation and locate the various institutions incidental to the creation 
of a State, does not meet the approval of the people of Oklahoma 
Territory- . We have there not only a just people, but we have a gener- 
ous people. We want to do right, and when we ask for our rights 
we do not propose to be put in the position of desiring that piecemeal 
clause provision of the McGuire bill. 

The committee thereupon adjourned until Friday, Januarv 29, 
1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m. 



Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives, 
Washingto7i^ D. (7., February i, 190 Jf,. 
The committee met this day at 10.30 o'clock a. m., the Hon. Edward 
L. Hamilton in the chair. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, let us proceed. Mr. Doyle will begin. 

STATEMENT OF ME. THOMAS H. DOYLE, OF PERRY, OKLA.— Con- 
tinued. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, at the 
close of my remarks at the former session of the committee I was dis- 
cussing a provision of Mr. McGuire's bill— the proviso of section 3, 
which is commonly and generally known throughout our region of 
country as the piecemeal-absorption plan. It is on page 2 of the 
McGuire bill, and reads as follows: 

Provided, That the constitutional convention provided for herein shall, by ordi- 
nance irrevocable, express the consent of the State of Oklahoma that Congress may 
at any time, or from time to time, attach all or any part of the Indian Territory to 
the State of Oklahoma after the title to said lands in said Indian Territory is extin- 
guished in the tribes now claiming the same, and the same assigned in severalty and 
subject to taxation. 

Now, I do not agree with Governor Powers, or with the statement he 
makes in answer to the proposition I advance, as to the constitution- 
ality of this particular proviso, in that the Constitution makes no 
provision that a State must be admitted upon an equality with the 
other States. But I do say that, upon applying the principle I argued 
before this committee to this bill taken as a whole, it is in conflict 
with the Constitution, because under the provisions of this bill, all of 
its general i)rovisions it seeks to create a ^State upon an absolute 



46 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

equality with the original States, and this piecemeal clause is a mere 
proviso that is incorporated in the bill. 

I want to sa}" further, calling your attention to the last sentence 
of this provision, which says '^ after the title to said lands in said 
Indian' Territory is extinguished in the tribes now claiming the same, 
and the same assigned in severalt}^ and subject to taxation," that every 
man upon this committee knows that the homestead legislation relat- 
ing to the Indians of these Five Civilized Tribes under the act of 
Congress — in fact under all the acts — even under the Curtis Act — pro- 
vides that the homestead shall be exempted from taxation for a period 
of twenty -five years, and under this particular provision of this bill 
this piecemeal- absorption clause would not become etfective or opera- 
tive for twenty-five years. That is the position in which they want 
to leave these two Territories at this time under this McGuire bill, 
leaving the Indian Territory up in the air, so to speak. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the telegi'ams relating to 
statehood should be incorporated and be made a part of the argument 
in support of the Robinson bill when they come from commercial 
bodies and clubs or municipal councils; and I will say to you, wdthout 
any knowledge of what has come, that 3^ou will find that at least nine 
out of every ten are in favor of single statehood; that is, Oklahoma 
and Indian Territory admitted together as one State. 

Mr. Robinson. What do they understand by single statehood out 
there? What are their terms? 

Mr. Doyle. Single statehood, in the acceptance of the term through- 
out Oklahoma and the Indian Territor}' , means one State composed both 
of Oklahoma and Indian Territory. That is the definition. I notice that 
gentlemen repeatedly and repeatedly confuse single statehood with the 
idea and the theory that it means one State for each Territor}^ But 
in the acceptance of that term throughout the Indian Territory and 
Oklahoma it means simpty the union of the two Territories as a single 
State. 

Mr. Robinson. Does Mr. McGuire agree with that construction ? 

Mr. McGuire. I can sa}^ as to what is understood by the people of 
Oklahoma; I am not so well prepared to say what is the understanding 
of the people of the Indian Territory as to the precise meaning of that 
term; but single statehood actually means the union of the two Terri- 
tories, and double statehood means Oklahoma at this time, regardless 
of the Indian Territory. But I want to say with reference to Mr. 
Do3de's statement that in his judgment nine out of ten people of Okla- 
homa favor the union of the two — that is, single statehood — I can say 
that there might be a way to have that matter submitted to a vote of 
the people of Oklahoma in the ver}^ near future, and I would be per- 
fectly willing to make this statement, that if there are not two- 
thirds, by actual count, of the people of Oklahoma who want the kind 
of statehood provided for in my bill, then I am perfectly willing to 
recede from my position and abide by their vote. 

Mr. Doyle. Before proceeding further in the discussion of this 
feature of the McGuire bill I want to state to 3^ou gentlemen that I 
have ofl'ered you the veto message of the governor, and I want now to 
read to 3"ou from the Session Laws of 1901 an expression of the legis- 
lative assembly of Oklahoma Territor3% wherein is embodied the onlj 
political power that the people of that Territoiy possess in an3" way; 
and I want to read that as against the statement of Mr. McGuire and 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 47 

his proposition. We want statehood; we want it at this time. I will 
read from page 232 of the Session Laws of Oklahoma for 1901, and I 
want to say to 3^ou that Mr. McGuire can produce no official action of 
our legislative assembly to the contrary. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Is that the one 3^ou read there the other da}^? 

Mr. Doyle. No, sir. I propose now to read from the session laws 
of two years later — page 232, Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1901. I may 
mention in passing that Mr. Clark, the gentleman who is here sup- 
porting the McGuire bill, introduced it, and Mr. Havens, the gentle- 
man who will follow me, was a member of that council. Here is what 
they said: 

COUNCIL JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 2. 

We, the members of the council and the house of representatives of the sixth 
legislative assembly of the Territory of Oklahoma, do most respectfully and earnestly 
pray, petition, and memoralize you and your honorable bodies to grant to this Ter- 
ritory and its people at the earliest possible moment the high privileges of a sovereign 
State in the American Union. 

We represent a constituency of nearly half a million people, increasing with unex- 
ampled rapidity, who inhabit nearly 40,000 square miles of fertile soil and who own 
$150,000,000 of wealth produced in a single decade from the wild prairie and the 
wilderness. In all its possible lines they stand at the very front of modern civiliza- 
tion. They have built and are supporting more than 2,000 common schools, 6 great 
institutions of learning, and more churches according to population and wealth 
than elsewhere in the world. They are a law-abiding and a law-enforcing people. 

In educational, moral, and religious life; in material resources; in population and 
wealth; in energy, enterprise, and accomplishment; in all the high ideals of honor- 
able living, in patriotism and the stanch elements of America's best citizenship, 
they are as unsurpassed, as they have proved themselves unrivaled in their capaci- 
ties for self-government and in their culture and refinement. 

We submit to the judgment of a candid world that such a people ought not to be 
longer held in political subjection, but are and of right ought to be entitled to imme- 
diate admission into the American Union as a sovereign State. We would further 
call your respectful attention to the Indian Territory lying upon our eastern borders. 
Its natural resources are supplemental to those of Oklahoma. 

The abnormal conditions there existing as to title and tenure of lands, of citizen- 
ship, and of social conditions are being rapidly composed to the American idea, and 
the law by slow and painful experience is learning to assert its power and to subserve 
public and individual rights. But 350,000 white and black American citizens are 
there existing without any political privileges, without local self-government, mere 
tenants at will and peasants of the soil to 70,000 persons of Indian extraction. They 
can build neither roads nor bridges, neither schools nor higher institutions of learn- 
ing, neither asylums for the unfortunate nor refugees for the poor. The individual is 
all, the community is nothing. They can not protect their cities against fire, nor 
themselves against public epidemic or contagion. Such conditions are so contrary to 
the very genius and vitality of the American standards that their continuance is not 
only unjust to the people immediately suffering them but menacing to their political 
neighbors and to the nation itself. We believe that immediate relief should be had 
by them; and if in your wisdom Oklahoma alone is not entitled to statehood, we 
urge the immediate admission into the Federal Union of both such Territories as one 
single State. 

We are not unmindful of the treaty obligations of the United States to the Five 
Civilized Tribes, and would not seek their violation. Let them be sacredly observed. 
But we most solemnly assert that the various boards and agencies of the Federal Gov- 
ernment can proceed after the political privileges of citizenship and the inestimable 
right of local self-government are secured to the American citizens resident there 
quite as well as if the present conditions of tenantry and political obliteration shall 
continue indefinitely. 

From the foregoing considerations we therefore most solemnly pray, petition, and 
memorialize you and your respective bodies to grant to the people of Oklahoma and 
the Indian Territory, with one government, immediate statehood under such condi- 
tions as in your wisdom will best subserve the present and future welfare and pros- 
perity of the State you shall thus create and admit into the Federal Union. 

Approved this 8th day of March, 1901. 



48 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA, 

The Chairman. I beg pardon, Mr. Doyle, but from what body of 
people does this memorial come? 

Mr. Doyle. This comes from the legislative assembl}^ of Oklahoma. 

The Chairman. Convened when? 

Mr. Doyle. In 1901. 

The Chairman. Where? 

Mr. Doyle. The legislative assembly of Oklahoma Territor}^ in 
session passed it unanimously, and under our law a joint memorial 
has the force and effect of law, although we have not the power to 
legislate. But this document is put in the form of a memorial to the 
Congress of the United States, and the Journal here shows that it 
asks for a single State — the kind provided for in the Robinson and 
Quay bills. Since that time the population has doubled. That 
memorial speaks of 300,000 people in the Indian Territory. The 
political conditions there have been relieved b}" certain acts of Con- 
gress, it is true 

Mr. Lloyd. You say that was introduced by Mr. Clark? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. He said so, and I do not deny it. 

Mr. Thayer. One thing that I do not understand was referred to a 
number of times, and that is in reference to keeping the compact made 
with the Five Civilized Tribes, as though that was an objection. AVill 
3^ou tell us what that is? I do not quite comprehend it m3^self. Per- 
haps the others do. It is very indistinct in ni}^ mind as to what that is. 

Mr. Doyle. What has been repeatedl}^ urged here by gentlemen is 
the treatj^ whereb}" the Five Indian Tribes were guaranteed that their 
country should never be included within the borders of any State or 
Territor}^ That was the original treat3^ 

Mr. Thayer. Has that any existence to-da}^ ? 

Mr. Doyle. No; that has been abrogated b}^ the act of Congress 
creating the Dawes Commission and under the act of Congress creating 
Oklahoma Territory. In fact it has never been enforced since the civil 
war. During the war the Five Tribes went with the South. In the 
reconstruction period new treaties were made, allowing them new 
privileges. 

Mr. Thayer. It has never been abandoned, has it? 

Mr. Doyle. That treaty provided that the Five Tribes should have 
five petty governments of their own. Those existed from the year 
1832 until the time of the civil war. Under those governments they 
had their own courts, their own lawmaking assemblies, their own 
executives, and their own administration of the law in every respect. 
They were self-governing bodies. They made no provision in their 
laws in any wa}^ for the white people whom they had invited to come 
and live among them. Then followed the Curtis Act and the opening 
up of this Territory. 

Mr. Lloyd. Now explain the Curtis Act. 

Mr. Doyle. The Curtis Act is substantially in the nature of a treat}^, 
and carries out a treaty. 

The Chairman. Does that Curtis Act abrogate in an}^ wa}^ the treaty 
theretofore made with the Five Civilized Tribes? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McGuiRE. And provides that the boundaries of any States or 
Territories should be extended over the Five Civilized Tribes? 

Mr. Doyle. That was not included in that treatv. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 49 

The Chairman. What provision did we make for the abrogation of 
the treaty? 

Mr. Doyle. It provides that on the 4th day of March, 1906 — that 
is, the act of June 28, 1898, so provides — that all tribal relations shall 
cease, and that by that time the allotment of lands in severalty shall 
be completed, and that at that time the members of the tribe shall be 
admitted to full citizenship in the United States. 

Mr. Robinson. B}^ the act of Congress and the national authority. 
The administration down there of their separate governments in the 
Five Civilized Tribes has been abrogated, except as to the executive 
and councils? 

Mr. Doyle. Except as to the executives and the councils in acting 
for their tribes and settling up their land affairs. They have no law- 
making power any more. All of their members and tribal officials, 
even in that capacity, are subject to United States laws and subject to 
prosecutions before United States courts. 

The Chairman. That is under the Curtis law, is it? 

Mr. Doyle. Under the Curtis law and previous acts, all those per- 
sons must be amenable to the laws of the United States for their offi- 
cial conduct, even when acting as tribal officers. One tribe government 
ends on January 1, 1898, and all others, it is provided, shall discontinue 
after March 4, 1906. 

Mr. Thayer. Did the}^ assent to that? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McGuiRE. The Curtis act was the result of a treaty? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir; and it was in line with the modern policy of 
the Government; that policv is to govern Indians by acts of Congress 
and not by treaty. 

Mr. McGuiRE. And that treaty did not in any way affect the bound- 
aries of Indian Territory, so far as other States and Territories are 
concerned? Do I understand you to say that there is at this time an}^ 
conflict as to treaty obligations between the Government of the United 
States and the individuals of the Five Civilized Tribes, providing that 
the}^ shall not be encroached upon by the boundaries of any other State 
or Territory? Is that intact yet? 

Mr. Doyle. No, sir; it will not be after January 1, 1906. 

Mr. McGuiRE. What treaty modifies that? 

Mr. Doyle. The treaty which the Curtis act is based upon. That 
provides for citizenship in the United States at that time. 

Mr. McGuiRE. You sa}^ that that treat}^ upon which the Curtis act 
is based provides that they may be attached to or taken in by some 
other State or Territory? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. And I claim further that they waived in that 
treat}", and under the Curtis act, the right even to designate who their 
tribal citizens were. That is a matter which the United States courts 
has jurisdiction of, including the citizenship court created b}" the act 
of Congress. The Indian tribes have no sa}" so any more as to who 
shall constitute their citizenship. That is done by the courts acting 
for the Government. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Can j^ou refer to the authority" which provides for 
the rescinding of the original arrangement or contract that no new 
bounds of territory shall be extended over them without their consent? 

Mr. Doyle. I will do that. 



50 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Thayee. How much of Indian Territory was included in the 
Five Civilized Tribes in 1832? 

Mr. Doyle. Every part of the Indian Territory, and Oklahoma Ter- 
ritory as now constituted. 

Mr. McGuiRE. You mean to say that constituted the Five Tribes? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. And there were friendly tribes settled upon it 
b}' treaty — tribes such as the Osages in the Cherokee land, and the 
Tonkawas, Poncas, and Otoes, Pawnees and the Kiowas and Co- 
manches. In the Lone Wolf case the treaties were construed in all 
their featu.res. 

Mr. Thayer. The Five Tribes have been gradually cut out from 
Oklahoma ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir; they have been. 

Mr. Thayer. Do I understand that to-day thev are all out of Okla- 
homa 1 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir; they are. 

Mr. Thayer. What proportion of Indian Territory do they now 
cover — what percentage ? 

Mr. Doyle. On that map over there on the wall [indicating] they 
occupied all east of that red line. 

Mr. Thayer. Half of the territory. 

Mr. Lloyd. All of the territory is included. 

Mr. Doyle. 'Mr. Chairman, I desire to say, for the benefit of my 
friend Mr. Thayer, that no autonomy of any kind has ever been cre- 
ated in connection with the Indian Teriitory. We speak of it as a 
Territory merely in the common usage and acceptance of the term as 
applied to-day, but it has never had any government of its own, and 
it has never been clothed with one single attribute of sovereignt}- — that 
particular part of the old Indian Territory, I mean. It has always 
been treated by statute as a part of Oklahoma. 

I have read j^ou the organic act which provides for the addition and 
opening of the Cherokee Outlet. Those eight counties have been 
added pursuant to that provision of the organic act, and the rest of 
Indian Territory is contemplated by that act to be made a part of 
Oklahoma Territory. It has no entity of its own. 

I will sa}^ to you, Mr. Thayer, that for the past ten years Oklahoma 
Territor}^ has been entitled, under the ordinary rule outside of area, 
to statehood; but its admission has been delayed, simpl}^ anticipating 
the fulfillment of the provision of the organic act that the Indian Ter- 
ritory should be added in with it. Mr. Dennis Flynn, the former Dele- 
gate from Oklahoma, as you all know, was a man who accomplished 
things, and if Oklahoma alone was to be admitted as a State, we 
believe that Mr. Flynn would have secured statehood for Oklahoma 
alone. You can read the histor}" of the admission of States, and no 
Territory with sufficient population was ever denied admission as long 
as the Territory of Oklahoma has been. The question of boundary 
has dela3^ed our admission, and the settlement of various questions in 
the Indian Territor}^ has delayed it. They are settled by the Curtis 
Act, and by the subsequent acts of Congress in confirmation thereof, 
for all time, when the tribal relations shall have been abolished and 
the provisions of law regarding land allotments are carried out, before 
the ith of March, 1906. 

Mr. McGuiRE. You speak of the laws. What laws? 



J 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 51 

Mr. DoYLE. They have onh^ the natural laws there, the xlrkansas 
law. and a little divine law, I might add. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Neither civil nor criminal procedure prevails in 
Oklahoma i 

Mr, Doyle. We have the Kansas procedure — that is, outside of all 
the legislation affecting both Territories: and the extension of the 
Arkansas law is the only instance where all acts of Congress does not 
tend to unity. When that was adopted there was no Oklahoma act. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Have not the Five Civilized Tribes been treated, so 
far as the criminal code is concerned, different from the tribes in 
Oklahoma ^ Is not that a fact ? 

Mr. Doyle. No, sir. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Do you mean to say that the same criminal Federal 
code which governs the Indian Territory- and applies to crimes com- 
mitted in the Indian Territory applies also to the crimes committed in 
Oklahoma^ 

Mr. Doyle. You mean the same Federal code ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. I would saj^ 3^es; with the possible exception of laws 
relating to conditions in the coal mines. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Is it not a fact that larcen}' in Oklahoma is not a 
felony i 

Mr. Doyle. It is a misdemeanor in Oklahoma when committed on 
an Indian reservation, otherwise it is a felony. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Do 3^ou say that is true of the Indian Territory? 

Mr. Doyle. I do sa^' that the general provisions of the Federal code 
apply to Oklahoma Territor}^ as they do in all States and Territories. 
It is a misdemeanor. Larceny is a misdemeanor under the Federal code 
when committed on an Indian reservation. 

]\Ir. McGuiRE. Did not the act of Congress treat the Five Civilized 
Tribes as separate and apart from an}^ of the tribes in Oklahoma ( 

Mr. Doyle. There was possibly some special legislation in that 
respect. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Larceny in Oklahoma is only a misdemeanor at this 
time. I have a bill pending, which I introduced, making it a felony. 
The last act of the United States treated the Five Civilized Tribes as 
separate. 

Mr. Thayer. Do they try a man for stealing a horse there ? I 
thought the}^ shot them right down. 

Mr. KoBixsox. Before 3^ou get away from the settlement by the 
friendly Indians in that Territory — I understand that was under a 
treat}^ made many 3^ears ago, when the Indians and the National Gov- 
ernment made a treaty, a treatv between the Cherokees and Creeks 
and the L'nited States Government, whereb}' their lands should be 
made available by the National Government for the settlement of other 
friendly Indians. 

Mr. Chester Howe. That applies to lands west of the ninet^^-sixth 
meridian. 

The Chair:\iAN. I would like Mr. Doyle, if he would, to incorporate 
in his remarks a reference to all the treaties affecting the Indians of 
Indian Territory, and also, so far as they ma}' affect the Indian tribes 
in Oklahoma, the decisions of the court bearing upon them. 

Mr. Doyle. I will do so. Here are some references right here: 



52 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

The Cherokee tobacco case, given in 11th Wallace, p. 616; The Chero- 
kee Nation v. The United States, 119 United States, pp. 1-27; the 
case of Thomas "v. Gay, in 169 United States, pp. 264-270; the case of 
Stevens v. The Cherokee Nation, given in 171 United States, pp. 415- 
488, and the Lone Wolf case (Lone Wolf v. E. A. Hitchcock), decided 
by the Supreme Court of the United States on Januar}^ 5, 1903; 
Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 United States, p. 294; United 
States V. Kagama, 118 United States, p. 375. Those all bear upon 
these treaties. The moral phase of these treaties is this: Those Indi- 
ans invited these white people to come in. At the time of the passage 
of the Curtis Act there were about 300,000 outsiders there. Now 
there are some 700,000. 

And right in that connection I want to read a report of the Dawes 
Commission, which is contained in Senate Document 106, Fifty-eighth 
Congress, second session, entitled a ''Memorial of Members of the 
Dawes Commission," with a letter from the Secretary of the Interior 
to the President pro tempore of the Senate, dated January20, 1904. 
From it I will read one paragraph: 

It is presuming profound ignorance to indicate that land, until a patent has been 
issued, or unless in an incorporated town or city, is or lawfully can be any appreci- 
able factor in the business of this country. White people and their commerce 
chiefly support nearly 400 towns, ranging in population from a few hundred to more 
than 10,000 souls, 200 newspapers and periodicals, 675 post-offices, nearly 3,000 miles 
of railroad, and 95 national banks. The total population here is four times that of 
Idaho, double that of North Dakota, nearly twice that of Vermont, and fifteen times 
as great as that of Nevada. There was organized in this Territory in the two years 
and seven months ending October 31, 1903, 75 national banks, or nearly four times 
as many as were organized in all New England during the same period of time. Did 
land have anything to do with these? 

I would cite that as the last official estimate that has been made. 
They estimate the population as 700,000. 

Mr. Lloyd. You just stated that the Indians had invited the whites 
in there. 

Mr. Doyle. Yes; prior to the passage of the Curtis Act probably 
300,000 white people had come in there; and since that time, at least 
according to this report, there have been 400,000 more who have come 
in. The result of that has been that the Indians of the Five Civilized 
Tribes have become rich in every respect. The white people have 
developed the resources of their country for them, and made it to-day 
one of the richest and most prosperous countries in the United States, 
outside of the matter of civil government. 

Mr. Lloy^d. I want to get at the question as to w^hether the Five 
Tribes desired the whites to come in or whether the whites encroached 
without the consent of the Indians. 

Mr. Doyle. There is no doubt they did desire the whites to come 
in. They have intermarried until, as the Dawes Commission sa3^s, 
there is onl}^ 5 per cent of them now who have any Indian blood in 
their veins. Perhaps I had better read that reference direct from this 
Dawes report. On page 4 of the memorial which I have just quoted 
the Dawes Commission sa}^: 

One would infer that there is no population in this country except Indians and no 
business except what comes under the Dawes Commission and is of the nature of 
unlawful and speculative dealings in Indian lands and leases. The grossest ignorance, 
ignorance not to be dreamed of, is apparently assumed as to the facts. Taking the 
census figures and the established rate of growth of population there are now nearly 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 53 

700,000 people in what is called Indian Territory, but little more than 10 per cent of 
whom are citizens of the so-called tribes, and not 5 per cent are appreciably of Indian 
blood. 

Now, the aunts and uncles, brothers, cousins, and other relatives of 
the first settlers and intermarried citizens moved down there among 
their Indian relatives, and then came the leasing of mineral lands and 
the development of their resources, and later the passage of the Cur- 
tis bill, providing laws for both whites and Indians, and now the popu- 
lation has increased to 700,000 people. 

Mr. Thayer. I notice in that that the expression is still put in, 
keeping the thing still in doubt in m\^ mind — the expression "in what 
is called Indian Territory." Do you not know on the face of the 
earth where the Indian Territory is? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thayer. Then wh}^ do the^^ always sa}^ "what is termed" or 
'•what is called Indian Territory," as if there was doubt? 

Mr. Doyle. Legally speaking, it has no legal entit}^ about it. It is 
not a Territory in the sense that other organized Territories are 
referred to; it is the country of the Five Civilized Indian Tribes. 

The Chairjla,n. It simph^ means a region of land where the 
Indians have settled? 

Mr. Thayer. But there is a dividing line between it and Oklahoma, 
the same as between the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts. 

Mr. Powers. Yes, sir: of course there is. 

Mr. Doyle. It has no autonomy and has no entity. The intention 
was to add it to Oklahoma when that became a State. I will admit 
that it has been said down there, as it was said respecting the whites 
in the original Indian countries long before along the Eastern sea- 
board, with respect to their treatment of the Indians, that — 

"Finst they fell upon their knees, 
And then upon the aborigines." 

The Chairman. Mr. C. E. Foley desires to submit an inquir3^ 

Mr. Foley. The Indians are said to have gone south. The}^ did 
not want to go either way, but they were forced into it. Some went 
south and some went north. That action was taken when the civil 
war was over. 

Mr. Steklixg. Mr. Doyle, if Oklahoma was made a State, what 
would be the status of Osage Indians? 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. McGuire's bill does not give them citizenship. 
The Quay bill and the Robinson bill do. Captain Palmer, a respected 
and honored member of the bar in Oklahoma, is here to-day. He is 
an eminent man in our countrv and was a soldier in the late war. He 
is a member of the Osage tribe. He vrill address the committee later 
as to the status of the Osage Indians and their desires upon this 
question. 

Now, speaking of another feature of the McGuire bill, it does not 
regrant 100,000 acres of land that have been taken in lieu of sections 
16 and 36 of the Osage part of the Oklahoma Territory. 

Mr. Morgan has certainly the right to say he is for the McGuire 
bill. He tells you he is the attorney of the people who are seeking to 
deprive the people of Oklahoma of these lands. I will read from the 
governor's report the status of these lands, so that you will under- 
stand it. 



54 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Powers. That is the same question that we inquired about of a 
man who preceded 3^ou? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir; that is also being argued before the Interior 
Department. We lose those lands if they are not regranted by the 
enabling act. Those lands are worth at least $2,000,000. I presume 
from Mr. Morgan's statement that his fee in the case is probabl}^ 
worth 1100,000. While he is a good man in every respect, he is a 
verj^ zealous attorne}", and the McGuire bill is in the interest of his 
clients, for that land under it will either go to his clients or to those 
claiming an interest adverse to the Territory. I will read from page 24 
of the report of the governor of Oklahoma for the year 1900: 

By authority of an act of the third legislative assembly the school land board of 
the preceding administration made a contract with the Hon. D. A. Harvey, as Terri- 
torial agent, for the selection of indemnity lands for losses from fractional sections, 
reservations, and other causes. Under this contract 101,188.68 acres were selected 
in the Kickapoo Reservation and 21,840 acres were selected in a body in AVoodward 
County, northeast of Camp Supply, for which services the agent received the sum of 
10 cents per acre, the cost to the Territory being $12,302 fees to the agent, in addi- 
tion to 11,568 fees to the registers and receivers of the land offices, which the Terri- 
tory has been compelled to pay upon these lands during the past year under depart- 
mental decision of April 19, 1898 (26 L. D., 536). 

The indemnity lands in the Kickapoo ountry were selected in lieu of lands in the 
Osage Reservation, and those in Woodward County were taken in exchange for lands 
in the Ponca and Otoe Reservation, to which the Territory waived its right. 

During the present administration indemnity lands have been selected as follows: 

Acres. 

Greer County, sections 13 and 33 21, 416. 56 

Greer County, common school 20, 713 

Common school, Custer and Dewey counties 9, 297. 28 

Total 51 , 426. 84 

The total expense in making these selections, preparing records, etc., in addition 
to the regular fees of the United States land office, has been $223.85. 

There are still due the Territory about 12,000 acres of indemnity lands, which 
will be selected in the near future. 

Mr. Harvey, the gentleman referred to above, was the Delegate from 
Oklahoma who preceded Mr. Fljmn. He has been here frequently. 
Now, in Mr. McGuire's bill the regranting clause reads as follows: 

Sec. 7. That upon the admission of said State into the Union sections numbered 
sixteen and thirty-six in every township of said proposed State, and where such sec- 
tions, or any part thereof, have been sold or otherwise disposed of by or under virtue 
of any act of Congress, then lands equivalent thereto are hereby granted to said 
State for the support of common schools, and such indemnity land shall be selected 
in such manner as the legislature of the State may provide, with the approval of the 
Secretary of the Interior. * * * 

Every other enabling act that has been proposed and submitted to 
this Congress provides that sections 16 and 36 heretofore granted, and 
indemnity lands heretofore taken in lieu thereof, shall be regranted. 
There will never be any public domain in the Ponca and Otoe country. 
All the treaties provide for the apportionment of these lands when 
they are allotted in their entirety — not merely 160 acres each and the 
remainder to be thrown into the public domain — and for that very 
reason these indemnity lands have been selected. 

These people have been tenants of Oklahoma Territory since 1895; 
but Mr. McGuire's bill absoluteh^ fails in ever}^ respect to regrant 
those lands to the State proposed to be created, and under the provi- 
sions of our courts construing the question as to the necessit}^ of a 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 55 

regrant to the new State created, the}^ all hold that the enabling act 
must regrant the land. 

Mr. Thayer. 1 do not get that through ni}^ head, Mr. Do3^1e. 

Mr. Doyle. These lands should be granted to the new State. All 
lands heretofore granted to the Territory are regranted in this 
McGuire bill to the State, with the exception of these indemnity 
lands. They have been taken in lieu of sections 16 and 36 in the 
Osage and Ponca and Otoe reservations. Those are the Indian tribes 
that failed to treat for the opening of their reservations. 

Mr. Thayer. The}^ were taken in lieu, 3"ou say? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, following out the jjrinciple that sections 16 and 36 
in every township shall be granted to the new State for educational 
purposes; but in this case it was not available by reason of the fact 
that it has been reserved in some other way, and the United States 
law requires that indemnity lands shall be taken in lieu thereof. But 
the McGuire bill fails to confirm the lands that have been taken in lieu 
thereof heretofore. 

Mr. Powers. Mr. Thayer, were 3^ou here the other day when Mr. 
Morgan was here? 

Mr. Thayer. No, sir. 

Mr. Powers. It seems there was a great rush of settlers when that 
region was opened, and it is a question whether the State shall have it 
or those who squatted or settled upon it. 

Mr. Doyle. If they are not regranted the}^ simply revert to the 
public domain. It will mean interminable litigation down there about 
those lands, and the tenants of our Territor}' will not derive an}^ benefit. 

The next objection to the McGuire bill is the provision that is 
made for representation. 

The Chairman. Right there, Mr. Doyle, let me ask 3'ou how long 
do you think jou will talk? 

Mr. Doyle. I think I can get through in half an hour. 

On motion of Mr. Llo3^d, seconded b}^ Mr. Robinson, the commit- 
tee decided to take a recess at 11.55 o'clock until 2 o'clock p. m. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, I will ask to be excused now, as I have 
occasion to go to the Supreme Court in relation to a certain matter. 

(Hereupon the chairman retired, and Hon. Llwellyn Powers as- 
sumed the chair.) 

Mr. Doyle (resuming). That is the provision referring to delegates. 
The language of Mr. McGuire's bill on that point is as follows: 

Sec. 2. "'^ * * and the governor, the chief justice, and the secretary of the 
Territory shall apportion the Territory into seventy-five districts, as nearly equal in 
population as may be, and one delegate shall be elected from each of said districts; 

-Jfr -St * 

Gentlemen, Ave have 26 organized counties in Oklahoma Territory. 
Every man upon this committee knows it is absolutely necessaiy that 
each county, as a subdivision, a municipal division of the new State, 
ought to receive some recognition. 

Mr. Thayer. Seventy-five districts of what? 

Mr. McGuire. In the constitutional convention. 

Mr. Doyle. In that respect the McGuire bill treats our Territory 
as though it was unorganized. Those 75 subdivisions are to be made 
regardless of county lines. We have 26 organized counties, and they 
should receive recognition in the enabling act. The representatives 
should be apportioned among the counties, and not b}^ districts that 



56 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

might be created b}" the whim of some man; and every county should 
have at least one member of that constitutional assembl}^, because the 
organic laws for counties are there settled and constituted. The 
manner of providing for the creation of new counties and the chang- 
ing of the boundaries of counties already existent are settled by all 
constitutions in the organic law. 

Instead of that, the McGuire bill proposes to district the Territory 
into 75 districts, without following county lines. The question of 
county representatives has not been given a thought. Each county 
should be entitled to representation according to the ratio of its popu- 
lation, and at least one member should be allowed for ever}^ count3^ 
The largest count}^ we have, Beaver County, would not have a ratio 
sufficient for one member, although it is a county composed of one- 
sixth of the entire Territory. Yet it has rights, as every other county 
has, which ought to be recognized before that constitutional assembly 
and be provided for in the enabling act. 

1 just want to call the attention of the committee to these dis- 
tricts, or to what I believe, in mj humble judgment, to be districts 
in the McGuire bill. 

Mr. Thayee. How has that been arranged in other States, Mr. 
Doyle? 

Mr. Doyle. By county representation, based upon representation 
giving every county at least one representative. 

Mr. Thayer. And others two or three, or three and four, and so on? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Spalding. At the time the four States in the Northwest were 
admitted in 1889 it was left to the governors, I think, and the secre- 
taries of the Territories to district the Territories. 

Mr. Doyle. Was not the rule laid down that they could fix the 
ratio for each county, and then they were elected by law? 

Mr. Spalding. Yes, sir; they were elected by districts. I was a 
member of the constitutional convention of Nortti Dakota at that time. 

Mr. Doyle. We claim that it is absolutely necessary to give coun- 
ties that have been organized for ten years, that are municipal bodies 
in every respect, at least one member in that constitutional assembly, 
and that those county lines should be followed in giving that recogni- 
tion. Now, I would like to read a couple of editorials in the Globe- 
Democrat. 

Mr. Thayer. Before you close, Mr. Doyle, I am thinking of this: 
The Indian Territory, as it is called — although there seems to be no 
such thing, but the Indian Territory with regard to its territory and 
land — is now in the hands of these Five Civilized Tribes substantially, 
and if they are to be admitted as a State they are not to have any voice 
in the matter? They are not voters? 

Mr. Doyle. Oh, yes; they are voters by the act of Congress, and 
the Robinson and Quay bills make them electors for all purposes, and 
are qualified as members of the constitutional assembly; and it is pro- 
vided that they are not to be deprived of citizenship. 

Mr. Thayer. They can have the right to vote for or against coming 
in, the same as a white man? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir; the same in every respect. 

Now I will read from the Globe-Democrat — the St. Louis Globe- 
Democrat, of November 20 — no, it is from the Globe-Democrat, 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 57 

reprinted from the Guthrie Leader of November 30, 1903, and credited 
to the Globe-Democrat. It says: 

Oklahoma's rapid growth. 

According to the annual report of Governor Ferguson, of Oklahoma, that Territory's 
present population is 650, 000, and the actual val ue of its taxable property is $400, 000, 000, 
although only $84,000,000 is returned by the assessors for 1903. The Territory's 
debt is $462,000. This is a very good showing for our southwestern neighbor. The 
probability is that the population figures are placed a Uttle too high here, but even 
putting it at 600,000 the total is very imposing. None of the Territories at the time 
of their admission to statehood had anything like this number of inhabitants. 

As the Indian Territory is also growing with great rapidity, there is a strong 
probability that the two at this time have an aggregate population in the neigh- 
borhood of 1,100,000. United — and they will be united, of course, when admitted 
to statehood — they would stand pretty high in the population scale. They would 
rank twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh on the roll of the forty-five. Nebraska would 
be a little way above them, but at their present rate of growth they would soon over- 
take that State. The chances are that if the politicians are muzzled and the people 
of the two Territories are allowed to get union early, the consolidated State will rank 
ahead of Louisiana and South Carolina by the time the census of 1910 is taken, and 
be the twenty-third on the roll. 

Oklahoma-Indian Territory has a brilliant future as a community. Each section, 
the Indian Territory with its rich mineral lands and Oklahoma with its vast capabil- 
ities in all lines of agriculture, supplied something which the other lacks. Together 
they will make a symmetrically formed State superficially, and be physically nearly 
as large as the average of their neighbors. The separatists are blocking the way 
toward annexation, but their days of activity are nearly ended. A community with 
600,000 alert, intelligent, progressive people is kept in subordination by the petty 
ambitions of a coterie of place seekers, but this condition can not last much longer. 
The majority of the people of the twin Territories want union, and those who are 
now blocking the way toward it will be pushed off the track or be compelled to fall 
in line with the single State men just as soon as Congress once more makes it plain 
that union is an absolute preliminary to admission. 

Now, I want to say that 1 would not like to utter those unkind words 
myself, so 1 quote them from the Globe-Democrat. You know that is 
one of the leading papers west of the Mississippi River — undoubtedly 
the leading Republican paper west of the Mississippi River. It is 
printed at 8t. Louis. 

Mr. Robinson. How large is its circulation in these Territories ? 

Mr. Doyle. Its circulation is probably larger than that of an 3^ other 
paper down there. It is read there daily. 

Then I will quote another editorial taken direct from the Globe- 
Democrat of November 30, 1903: 

Congress is unalterably opposed to the admission of the two Territories as separate 
States. This is a fact which ought to be faced by the separatists. The persistence 
of the demand for the creation of two States in the case of Oklahoma and the Indian 
Territory will prevent both from being admitted. It is either union or nothing with 
Congress. This fact has been made so plain that there is no longer any excuse for 
denying or ignoring it. The way for the citizens of the two Territories to get admis- 
sion is to demand union and to silence the separatists. In area, the new State would 
be about the same size as the average of its neighbors. Each section would supply 
something which the other lacks. United, the two Territories would make a sym- 
metrical and powerful Commonwealth, which would start out with five members of 
the popular branch of Congress. Oklahoma and the Indian Territory can, by agree- 
ing to pool their issues, get admission before the present Congress ends. 

Mr. Doyle (resuming). I do not think Mr. McGuire will deny the 
statement that the Globe-Democrat has a more general circulation 
throughout the Territories than any other paper. 

Mr. McGuiRE. This is from the Leader of Guthrie, although it is 
credited to the Globe-Democrat. 



58 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Doyle. No, the other is reprinted in the Leader, but this is 
taken directly from the Globe-Democrat. I haA^e the original of the 
other, and I will furnish it to you if you want it. 

Now, we haye people in our Territories who are against am^ form of 
admission as a State or States, although they would not express their 
yiews openl3^ But, as I say, there is a large class of men whose 
selfish interest is for the continuation of the present conditions there. 
Take, for instance, the Federal officials. There is about a million 
dollars appropi^ated for the Indian Territor^^ by law, and about half 
of that for Oklahoma Territory. Howeyer, 1 will sa}^ to the credit of 
three out of the seyen judges on our bench, that those three haye 
openh^ come out in fayor of a single State, and that, too, regardless of 
the effect it might haye on the positions the}^ hold. 

Mr. McGuiRE. They would not lose their positions any sooner, 
would they, Mr. Doyle, if the}^ would break away from the Indian 
Territory ?*^ 

Mr. Doyle. I do not say they would. But a 'man wdio asks for 
statehood for Oklahoma alone to my mind is opposed to statehood 
altogethei', because I can not see on what basis a man can base his 
hopes for statehood separately. 

There is not one chance in a hundred of his getting it. For instance, 
I can not see how I could expect Judge Russell here to base his action 
as a Congressman or Representatiye of the State of Texas if he 
fayored two States, remembering the fact that in the Senate eyer^^ 
State as a soyereignty can express its will by two yotes on eyery law 
that passes Congress, on the ratification of all treaties, on eyer}^ appro- 
priation, and all impeachment trials; and I do not think he would 
be doing right b}^ the State of Texas by assisting in giving to Oklahoma 
and to Indian Territor}^ separately two yotes each in the Senate when 
his own State had onh" two, while that State, his own State of Texas, 
has eight times as much area as either and has a coast line that is 
simph^ immense. I say I do not see how he could be doing justice to 
his own State in seeking to create four new United States Senators 
down there on that limited area, when both united are only one-fourth 
of the area of his own State. 

Mr. Powers. How would that line of reasoning apply to the admis- 
sion of New Mexico and Arizona'^ 

Mr. Doyle. The line of reasoning there would be absoluteh^ differ- 
ent. The line of reasoning followed b}^ Virginia when it made part 
of its territor}^ into the State of Kentuck}- was simply that the Alle- 
ghen}^ mountain range la}' between her and the proposed Territor}' of 
Kentucky. It was the same in regard to North Carolina in her giy- 
ing up the Territory of I ranklin, which afterwards became the State 
of Tennessee. In that case also a range of mountains interyened, just 
as it did between Virginia and Kentucky. The same line of reasoning 
was adyanced before the ciyil war b}" the people who now constitute 
the State of West Virginia, who afterwards were created into a sep- 
arate State b}^ reason of the contingencies of the war. All these 
precedents suggest that New Mexico and Arizona should be separate 
States. 

Mr. Powers. I do not think you understood my question. If I 
understood your statement correctly, it w^as this: That b}" creating two 
States, haying four Senators to yofe, Mr.. Russell, of Texas, would be 



I 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 59 

doing injury to his own State by permitting that situation to arise 
Avhere there would not be a fair preponderance in the Senate. 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. But when we remember that in the case of every 
contirmation that is made of a nomination; that in the ratification of 
every treaty formulated by this Government in its executive depart- 
ment he would be giving double the power to Oklahoma and Indian 
Territory to what is own State has got and can exercise now; and, 
further, when we remember that all impeachment matters are tried 
by the Senate, then by that act of his in assisting or advocating the 
erection of two separate States from Oklahoma and Indian Territory 
he would be giving double the power to that region, down near to 
Texas, that his own State would have in the United States Senate. 

Mr. Robinson. Governor Powers refers to the mountains as a con- 
tinental divide, where there is no affinit}^ between the people who live 
on the opposite sides. 

Mr. Doyle. Yes; and the same rule will apply on the question of 
population to a certain extent; because, while they have a very limited 
population out there in that country, they have vast possibilities of 
future growth. But I am making an argument on the question of area. 

(At this point, 11.55 a. m., according to arrangement, proceedings 
were suspended and the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.) 

AFTER RECESS. 

Mr. CusHMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I might have about thirty seconds, 
I wanted to make a little statement informally to the committee, sim- 
ply to say that it is my hope that when the Territorial programme is 
somewhat off 3"our hands we may have some number of days to con- 
sider the Alaska bills, of which there are quite a number. 

Mr. Lloyd. Will the first week in March suit you? 

Mr. CusHMAN. There is only one objection to that — that it is a little 
bit late. I do not know but that it might do. 

Mr. Lloyd. The only reason I suggest that is that you may be cer- 
tain to go ahead if 3^ou want to fix a time. 

Mr. CusHMAN. That is what I want to do, if possible, so as to get 
some idea as to when we ma}' be able to have a hearing, that I ma}^ 
arrange to have one or two gentlemen here. 

The Chairman. How much time do vou wish in connection with the 
Alaska bill? 

Mr. CusHMAN. I think we ought to have hearings for five or six 
days, or for four or five da3^s anyway. For instance, 1 would like to 
take up the delegate bill. That is, perhaps, one of the most impor- 
tant. Then there is the general road bill, providing means by which 
a general fund may be created for the building of roads generally 
around Alaska. Then there is one special bill providing for a par- 
ticular roadway from Valdes to Eagle City. Those are some of the 
most important measures that I think we ought to take up. 

Mr. Robinson. Those are national highways under the report of 
the commission that visited there? 

Mr. CusHMAN. Yes, sir. Then, there is another bill providing for 
rights of way for telephone and telegraph companies.. There are 
quite a number of measures that 1 think we ought to take up and 
consider. 



60 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

The Chairman. I think we might get at it some time after the 15th 
of the month — possibl}^ the last week in February. 

Mr. Sterling. I have been approached by a party with reference 
to being heard before the committee on the bill for a delegate from 
Alaska. 

The Chairman. We can go on with the Territorial hearings, and 
when we arrive at a point where there is a chance your people could 
be heard, if they can be gotten here without notice. 

Mr. CusHMAN. One of them is Mr. Haugett, who was here last 
winter, and who was of great assistance to me. He is a man who is 
thoroughly posted about the conditions in Alaska, and he is also a 
pretty good lawyer. 

The Chairman. Is he in the city now? 

Mr. Cushman. He is not. He is in San Francisco, but he has 
written and he has telegraphed me that he would come when I 
requested him to do so. 

The Chairman. If Mr. Cushman had a man here, for instance, who 
could only be here for a very short time, and it was desired that he 
should come before the committee, I presume the committee would be 
willing to set aside a time to hear him. 

Mr. Lloyd. Suppose we commence with the hearings on the 
Alaskan question on Monday, the 22d of February. 

Mr. Cushman. I think, perhaps, that would suit me. Judge Wicker- 
sham, our United States judge, is here, and if it should develop that 
he can remain that long we would like to have him heard. 

Mr. Lloyd. He can be heard at any time. We are an accommo- 
dating committee. 

The Chairman. The whole committee will be very much pleased to 
accommodate vou in anv wav, Mr. Cushman. 

Mr. Lloyd.^ Will the 22d'^suit you? 

Mr. Cushman. Yes. 

Mr. Lloyd. I move that the hearings following the 22d of February 
be set aside for the Alaskan question. 

The Chairman. You have heard the motion, gentlemen. As many 
as are in favor can say aye, and those opposed, no. The ayes have it, 
and the motion is carried. 

If there is any change in the programme we will notify you. 

The Chairman. Now, gentlemen, we will be pleased to hear you 
with regard to the Territorial question. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS H. DOYLE— Resumed. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. I 
assure you I appreciate the fact that 3^ou have been patient and indul- 

§ent in listening to the presentation of our claims in behalf of the one 
tate cause, and I wish to say that I have been here for a month 
waiting for an opportunity to appear before the committee as a mem- 
ber of the single statehood executive nonpartisan committee, and my 
appearance here has been entirely at m}^ own expense. I am not here 
as an attorney. I am not here in a representative capacity, nor as a 
man who expects to be rewarded, but simply as a member of that 
committee, in carrjnng out the objects of that committee. I am very 
anxious to get through and to get back home. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 61 

I want to sa}^ to you, gentlemen of the committee, that 1 want no mem- 
ber of this committee to take ni}^ criticisms of Mr. McGuire's bill, or 
his attitude in this matter, as personal to him in any way. Mr. 
McGuire stands as high in my estimation as an}^ other member of 
the bar of our Territory or any other citizen that we have in the Ter- 
ritor}". We have been living in adjoining counties since the opening 
of the Cherokee Strip for settlement in 1893. Although in the general 
practice of law a part of the time, Mr. McGuire has been the United 
States assistant district attorney for that district and for that Territory 
for a number of years. We have been thrown in contact repeatedly in 
the courts and also on the rostrum in connection with political matters; 
but all these charges that appear in the press of this country in con- 
nection with Mr. McGuire are simply newspaper talk as far as I am 
concerned and as far as all good citizens of our Territory are con- 
cerned. He stands as high as any man in ever}^ respect, both as a law- 
yer and as a citizen, and although we differ on this question of state- 
hood I do not wish it to be understood in any way that 1 desire to 
have this committee believe that I speak in any manner disrespectfully 
of Mr. McGuire. 

Mr. Lloyd. We are glad to have you make that statement, Mr. 
Doyle, but Mr. McGuire does not need any commendation to this 
committee. 

Mr. Doyle. And he does not need it at home, I assure 3^ou. But 
I wish to sa}^ at this time that 1 believe Mr. McGuire, by reason of 
the fact of his being United States district attorne}^ and one of that 
class of our population that are benefited and who have a selfish inter- 
est in having Oklahoma Territor}" remain as a Territory, is somewhat 
biased in his views in regard to the question. 1 do not think he has 
been in as close touch with the common, ordinary, everyday people 
of Oklahoma Territory as myself, either ofiicially or in his ever^^day 
afi'airs. I have had the honor to represent the people of my county 
in the legislative assembh^ for four yeai-s, and these matters have been 
very fully discussed in that particular bod}- . 

Also, I presume 1 have been in that Territor}^ more than Mr. 
McGuire has. His official business has called him elsewhere. But I 
do not want this committee to take m}^ mere assertion in this matter 
of what the sentiment of our people is, and I want now to read to 3^ou 
the expression of the Oklahoma School-Teachers' Territorial Associa- 
tion in a resolution as to their attitude in regard to this matter. W^hen 
Mr. McGuire says that two-thirds of the people are against single 
statehood I think it proper that it should go before this committee. I 
am reading from page 1109, volume 36, of the Congressional Record, 
the resolution of the school-teachers' Territorial organization, addressed 
to Senator Beveridge, Januar}^ 20, 1903, about one year ago: 

Whereas the Territory of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory are united in geo- 
graphical location, in the nature and character of their soils and climate, and each 
is the complement of the other in those great natural resources which make a region 
fit for the home of a prosperous and enlightened people; and 

Whereas the white people of the two Territories are united and l^ound together by 
common ties of relationship, habits, character, and social life, making their histories 
common and their destiny one; and 

Whereas there are 150,000 white children of scholastic age in the Indian Territory 
who are absolutely deprived of the boon of public free schools, and are the only sub- 
jects of the United States Government in either hemisphere that have been thus 
neglected; and 

Whereas the parents of said children have made their homes in the Indian Terri- 



62 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

tory at the invitation of the Indian tribal government and at the earnest solicitation 
of the United States Government and have by their labors transformed a wilderness 
into a land of civilization and orderly life : Therefore, be it 

Resolved, by the Territorial Teachers' Association of the Territory of Oklahoma, That 
we petition the Congress of the United States to make provision for the immediate 
relief of our friends and neighbors by the enactment of laws Avhich will authorize' 
and provide for the establishment of a system of public schools in that area now 
embraced by the boundaries of the Indian Territory. 

1 want to read further the petition of the people of Chandler, Lin- 
coln County: 

We, the citizens of Chandler, Lincoln County, Okla., regardless of political party 
affiliation, in mass meeting assembled in the city of Chandler, this 8th day of 
December, 1902, hereby announce our belief in and allegiance to the single statehood 
principles enunciated by the recent resolutions of the Claremore statehood convention. 

We desire to indorse and commend the broad and patriotic views of the Senate 
Committee on Terrttories embodied in that committee's substitute bill, known as the 
Nelson bill, which provides for single immediate statehood for Oklahoma and the 
Indian Territory. 

We believe that any other bill than that which provides for the union of these 
twin Territories — so closely related socially and commercially, each so fairly and 
fully the complement of the other — upon an equal basis would be fraught with dis- 
aster to each, limit and cramp their boundaries and opportunities, and oppress their 
people with the burdensome and unnecessary transaction of dual State government: 
Therefore be it 

Resolved, That we heartily indorse the Nelson statehood bill and urge its imme- 
diate enactment into law, and that copies of this resolution be furnished the local 
press and the original forwarded to Hon. C. B. Ames, at Washington, D. C, with a 
request that he present the same to the Senate Committee on Territories. 

- EoY Hoffman, 
T. B. Knapp, 
J. D. Peekins, 
Committee on Resolutions. 

Adopted without objection. 

Attest: 

F. W. Rash, President. 

G. A. Smith, Secretary. 

Mr. Hoffman was the former assistant United States attorney. Mr. 
Knapp, as I remember, was a member of the Kepublican Territorial 
executive committee — all representative citizens. 

Mr. McGuiRE. That teachers' resolution does not go into the ques- 
tion of statehood, does it? 

Mr. Doyle. I think so. It says: 

Whereas the white people of the two Territories are united and bound together by 
common ties of relationship, habits, character, and social life, making their histories 
common and their destiny one. 

I want to read the resolution of the Medical Society of a year ago 
•this month: 

At a meeting of the Oklahoma County Medical Society, a representative body of 
the medical profession of the Territory, of indifferent tenor politically, which meet- 
ing occurred the 23d instant, the following resolution was moved and seconded and 
passed unanimously by the society: 

' '■Resolved, That this meeting unequivocally indorse the bill known as the Senate 
substitute for the omnibus bill providing for the entrance into the Union of those 
Territories known as Oklahoma and Indian Territories as one State, under the, name 
of Oklahoma. 

"Signed by the officers of the Oklahoma County Medical Society, and copies for- 
warded to Senators Beveridge and Cockrell. 

"E. D. Long, M. D., President. 
"W. J. Boyd, M. D., Secretary.'' 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 63 

I could take up and give you a great man}^ additional indorsements 
of that character. 

There is one on the question which I have presented here in regard 
to the particular provdso of Mr. McGuire's bill, the piecemeal clause, 
and I want to say a word in explanation at the outset in justice to Mr. 
McGuire's bill. When Mr. Harvey was the first Delegate of Oklahoma 
Territory that clause was added to his statehood bill and it has been 
followed to a certain extent up to this time, except that part relating 
to taxation of Indian lands which would carr}^ it over twenty-five 
3^ears before it would become operative. It has been sup])lemented. 
The conditions then were entireh^ different. That was over ten or 
twelve years ago. Then this white population did not exist in the 
Indian Territor}^ In a discussion between himself and myself before 
the risiting committee of Senators, Mr. Asp, of Guthrie, claimed to 
be the originator of that clause at that time and sought to justif}" its 
provisions by reason of the conditions existing when it was first con- 
ceived. I want to read to you a comment on that clause, of Senator 
Tillman. 

Mr. Lloyd. What Tillman is that; Senator Tillman? 

Mr. Doyle. Senator Tillman. And the people of his State. He 
spoke for them. That is on page 1121, volume 36. 

The Chairman. I do not know how far the rule in relation to com- 
ments on the proceedings of the two Houses of Congress goes. 

Mr. Doyle. I will just refer to it, and an}" member of the com- 
mittee ma}" read it. He uses stronger language than I have used. 

Mr. Pow-ERS. Mr. Tillman generally uses strong language. 

The Chairman. I think you had better not put that in the record, 
Mr. Doyle. You can give it to us for our information. 

Mr. DoYLE. Very well. In perusing that you will see that Mr. 
Tillman states this from personal observation, he having made a lec- 
ture tour throughout both Territories, and he speaks from personal 
knowledge of the character of the people of both Territories, and the 
principle sought to be established by the piecemeal absorption clause. 

The Chairman. It is proper for us to know this, and you can tell us 
confidentially; but I do not think I Avould put it in your speech in the 
body of the proceedings. 

Mr. Doyle. I will not do it, but it is possible that my comments on 
that subject would be considered extreme by some parties who will 
follow me, and I want to show that, being an outsider and not living 
there, he denounced it in language that was commended by 

Mr. Lloyd. You would hardly say that Mr. Tillman is not an 
extremist. 

Mr. Doyle. I want to say that he is right on that principle, and 
that his language is worthy of any man's perusal and approval. Now, 
gentlemen, I want to quote an authority in support of the position I 
take, and I do not think anybody w^ill question it. 

I quote from George Tichnor Curtis, in his constitutional history of 
the United States, in connection with the argument that I make, as to 
the sovereignty of a Territory and as to the fact that only one 
sovereignty has ever been created by Congress wdthin the area of 
both Territories. This is one argument, at least, if we can speak of a 
Territory as a sovereignty. Of course it is simply a tentative sover- 
eignty. It has not real sovereignty because the negative power of 



64 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Congress over its legislation deprives it of sovereignty, but it has 
autonom3^ 

I want to read to you what Mr. Curtis says, speaking of Territories 
and the following comment on the admission of new States, volume 2, 
page 228. He sa3^s — 

That Congress is placed under the obligation of a public trust to permit such com- 
munities to become States, and to bring them into the Union as States when the 
people demand it and they have sufficient population and resources so to sus- 
tain a State government, republican in form and spirit. It is not a proper discharge 
of this public trust to keep any Territorj^ indefinitely in the condition of a Territory, 
thereby keeping open a field for the continued exercise of Federal patronage and 
power. 

Territorial government is not self-government, and although it is necessary for a 
certain period for Congress to govern settlers on the public domain, a period that 
may vary in different cases, yet, where the Territorial community has become so 
large, so prosperous, that its people are entirely capable of governing themselves, it 
is contrary to the spirit, institutions, and, in my opinion, to tJ^e intent of the Con- 
titution, to withhold from them the full panoply, rights, and privileges of statehood, 
and not keep them in subjection to a distant power over which they have not even 
a partial control, as the citizens of every State in the Union have. 

I think that is a good aathorit3^ That work is frequently referred 
to in decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, as you all 
know, and the theory of Mr. Curtis is the sound one, and I think his 
brief and argument as one of the counsel in the Dred Scott case is 
worth}^ of perusal by any man interested in Territories and their 
relation to the General Government. You will also remember that he 
was counsel, as I remember it now, for President Johnson in the 
impeachment trial, and was an eminent writer, law\^er, and jurist. He 
was a brother of a former justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
States. 

Taking into consideration the fact that we have the population, as 
set forth in the arguments made, and particularly by Mr. Clarke and 
by Mr. Morgan, and the arguments that will be made by m}^ friend 
Senator Havens, and all the arguments they make in regard to Okla- 
homa are doubly applicable and sustain and strengthen our cause, 
when you stand on the indisputable ground that both Territories should 
be one State, and not two pett}^ States jealous of each other. 

1 want to say further at this time in regard to the bills that are pend- 
ing here for the creation of a delegate for the Indian Territory, that 
if any one of these bills were to become law, it would tend to defeat 
ultimate single statehood, and would probably result in two separate 
States. 

The Indian Territor}^, if created as a separate jurisdiction. Terri- 
tory, or State, would be at a greater disadvantage than an}^ Territory 
or State heretofore created. It would be smaller in area than an}^ 
Territory that has ever been created and organized as a Territory. 
Indiana has heretofore been the smallest, but Indian Territory would 
lack 3,000 miles of being even as great as Indiana. Oklahoma goes a 
trifle over Indiana, and is the second smallest ever created and organ- 
ized into a Territory. This does not refer to small States which were 
colonies created by crown acts of the English Kings. I might further 
refer to Verniont and West Virginia. You know the histor}^ of thos^ 
Commonwealths. 

They never were Territories for a day. New York and New Hamp- 
shire claimed Vermont in the early da3^s. Virginia became divided 
during the civil war, and West Virginia was created as a State; but it 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 65 

never had a Territorial government and no Territor}^ has ever been 
created of as small an area as the Indian Territory. Onl3^ one Territory 
has ever been heretofore created — and that is Indiana— as small as 
Oklahoma. Indian Territor}^, if organized as a Territory, would be 
at the disadvantage of having no public domain from which public 
grants of land to promote education and the general welfare of the 
country could be made, and it would be different in that respect from 
anv Territory heretofore created. We all remember the rule laid 
down in the creation of the Northwest Territory, article 3, which reads, 
as I remember it, as follows: " Religion, morality, and knowledge being 
necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind schools 
and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." I want to 
read that particular clause of the ordinance of 1787, but I presume 
every member is familiar with it. 

Mr. Lloyd. You might incorporate that. 

Mr. Doyle. Ver^^ w^ell. The conditions existent there are not such 
as that land may be granted, and under the provisions of the Robin- 
son bill, we having almost 4,000,000 acres of unappropriated public 
domain in addition to the 2,075,000 acres heretofore granted, we 
have sufficient to equalize sections 16 and 36 in every township of 
Indian Territory that is to be taken from the public domain in Okla- 
homa. As the Robinson bill provides it shall be taken as indemnity 
land, and in addition to that the Robinson bill makes a grant of 
15,000,000 cash. 

The Quay bill does not grant indemnit}^ lands, but makes a straight 
grant of $10,000,000 in lieu of sections 16 and 36, heretofore reserved 
in all States of the Louisiana Purchase, but which under the existent 
circumstances can not be reserved in the Indian Territorv. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do 3^ou maintain that Indian Territory, as it now stands, 
can not maintain its public schools ? 

Mr. Doyle. As it now stands, it can not. I am speaking of the 
proposed legislation creating it as a separate State. 

Mr. Lloyd. Would not Indian Territory be as well qualified to take 
care of its public schools as Oklahoma ? 

Mr. Doyle. No, sir; we have 2,055,000 acres of land now granted 
altogether. I would refer to the governor's report. The rentals 
alone exceed $1,000 per da3\ 

Mr. Lloyd. You are basing that upon the theory that the Congress 
of the United States would not make a provision for the school fund ? 

Mr. Doyle. I base it upon this theory, Mr. Lloyd, that the Dawes 
Commission has failed in the allotting of the land to carr}^ out the 
principles of this Government that have been in force for the last cen- 
tury, in that public land has always been reserved in the new States 
that have been created and added to the United States to promote edu- 
cation. The Dawes Commission failed to reserve any land to promote 
education in the Indian Territory, except that they did provide that 
500,000 acres of mineral land should be segregated under the Atoka 
agreement for the benefit of the Chocktaw and Chickasaw Indian 
schools. That agreement stood until the last session of Congress, 
when an act was passed by Congress that provided for the sale of that 
segregated land, and when that land is sold the proceeds are to be 
divided pro rata among the members of the Chocktaw and Chickasaw 
tribes, thereby wiping out the onty provision that had been made for 
the promotion of education in this Indian country. 



OKLA- 



66 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Lloyd. Then, as a moral proposition, would it not be wrong to 
require Oklahoma to keep up the schools of both the Indian Territory 
and Oklahoma? 

Mr. Doyle. It certainly would be, unless we consider the fact that 
our grants were made in connection with the same act that provides 
for the annexation to Oklahoma of Indian Territory, and in which the 
indemnity lands spoken of here are taken in lieu of sections 16 and 36 
in the Osage country. The}^ were taken from other parts of the pub- 
lic domain of Oklahoma, because under the treaties w4th the Osage 
there can be no public domain there. The provisions of the Robinson 
bill carry out the idea that sections in lieu of 16 and 36 shall be taken 
from the public domain of Oklahoma, as has been done in the Osage 
Nation case. We still have a large unoccupied public domain remain- 
ing, but these lands are not as good as the lands that were first segre- 
gated. Take them for instance in Beaver County, which has close to 
3,000,000 acres of public domain at this time alone. That is within 
the arid district. The Robinson bill provides that 15,000,000 appro- 
priation in order to equalize the value of the land already granted and 
selected and that proposed to be granted and selected under the bill. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Is it your suggestion that lieu lands should be taken 
from the present public domain remaining in Oklahoma ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McGuiRE. For the Five Civilized Tribes? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir; in lieu of aid, for sections 16 and 36 in each 
congressional township in the Five Tribes— the same as we have already 
taken indemnity lands in the Kickapoo countr}^ in lieu of sections 16 
and 36 in the Osage country which is now a part of ^ the Oklahoma 
Territory. 

Mr. McGuiRE. In that way the schools of the Indian Territory 
would be supported from lands taken from the public domain in 
Oklahoma. 

Mr. Doyle. It does not support the schools. 

Mr. McGuiRE. But to that extent, I say. 

Mr. Doyle. To that extent; yes, sir; in addition to the 15,000,000 
which we appropriate to carry out the former principles I have referred 
to — to promote education. 

Mr. McGuiRE. To whom do the public lands belong that are not 
ceded to the Territory? 

Mr. Doyle. To the United States; and the original grant of school 
lands is to the State of Oklahoma, whatever it might be, and Congress 
reserves the right to fix the boundaries of that State as it sees tit in 
the future. 

When Mr. Clark states that the Indians have been opposed to single 
statehood I want to call the attention of the committee at this time to 
the attitude of Chief Green McCurtain when he was here advocating the 
sale of reserved mineral lands. He stated, as the press reported him, 
that ultimate single statehood would cause the funds derived from the 
sale of the mineral lands to go to the common school fund of the new 
State, and that the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indian school children 
would be educated then in the common schools; and further, that in 
his opinion whatever indemnity the nation would give to his people 
would be small in comparison to the value of the mineral lands reserved 
originally for the benefit of the school children of the Choctaw and 
Chickasaw Indian Nation. That is the gentleman that Mr. Clark quotes 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 67 

now as wanting separate statehood. I say to you that if the original 
intention of this agreement as made by the Dawes Commission had 
been carried out it would have been the strongest argument that could 
be offered before this body in favor of separate statehood; then the 
Indians would have lands to promote education; but the men that Mr. 
Clark states now are opposing single statehood are the ver}^ men 
who consented to have that land sold in order that the funds derived 
therefrom could be distributed pro rata among the members of the 
Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes. 

I want to say that some of the members of the committee which I 
have the honor to be a member of are men who are leaders in the 
councils of the Five Tribes. I refer to Mr. Paschal, of Tahlequah, who 
is a member of this executive committee and chairman of one of the 
Oklahoma City single statehood conventions — the last one that was 
held; also Mr. Johnson, of Chickasa. Of that committee of twenty, 
at least five are men who are prominent in the affairs of the Five 
Tribes — men who have been legislators, men who stand high in every 
respect in that Territory. I believe they represent the true sentiment 
of the people of the Five Tribes. 

1 want to say as to the blanket Indian — the Snake band of the Creeks 
and the Keetonah band of the Cherokees — they are the only remaining 
portion that could possibl}^ be classed as being the kind of Indians we 
have in Oklahoma Territory. The others are classed in the report of 
the Dawes Commission, that I think has been made in the past few 
days, as having only a tincture of Indian blood, and being white men 
in all respects and in every way entitled to self-government as men could 
be. When I oppose the bills that are pending for a delegate, I say 
that it would delay statehood, in my mind, because it would tend to 
create another autonomy within the area of the two Territories. 

Mr. Lloyd. What do you think about the question of right, as to 
the making of a single State and turning over to that State public 
institutions and public buildings which have been paid for b}^ 
Oklahoma ? 

Mr. Doyle. In response to that question I wish to state this: That 
the only public buildings Oklahoma Territory has are educational 
buildings. We have no State capitol. We have no penitentiary. We 
have no reform school for boys. We have no reform school for girls. 
We have no blind asylum and we have no insane asylum. Those 
unfortunates, under the conditions that exist there, are farmed out 
to corporations which are organized for the purpose of bidding to 
secure and care for and control that class of people. You will all 
remember the scandals incident to this system that have occurred there. 
It attained a national notoriety. It was in connection with the treat- 
ment of that class of people under contracts that had been made by the 
executive part of our Territorial government. 

Possibly one of the strongest reasons that has developed for the 
necessity of those institutions — but the fact is that we have anticipated 
a union of both Territories as one State, and for this reason the legis- 
lative assemblies have always failed to agree to locate institutions of 
that character — and the only reason that has been urged is that it 
would be unfair to the part of the new State that is to be composed of 
the Indian Territor}^ to permanently locate those institutions. We 
have a fund that now approximately amounts to one-half a million 
dollars derived from rentals of section 33 in the counties of the 



68 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Cherokee strip and the counties of Comanche, KioAva, Caddo, and 
Greer, that has never been expended and which is known as the 
public-building fund. Those amounts were, under the provision 
of the original grant, to be devoted to public buildings of the Terri- 
tor}^^, and under the provisions of this act in the counties where they 
have been segregated. They have been segregated only in 11 counties 
of Oklahoma's 26. 

Mr. Lloyd. You have a university, have you not, and some normal 
schools ? 

Mr. Doyle. We have a universit}^ The last assembly appropri- 
ated the money to rebuild the university. It is located right on the 
line, as 1 stated before, on the banks of the South Canadian River, 
where the river forms the boundary line between both Territories. 
Those institutions are educational institutions, and they are the onl}^ 
institutions that have been provided for thus far. Three of them are 
located east of what will be the center of the new State if both Terri- 
tories are united as one State and will be as accessible in every respect 
to the Indian Territory as they are to Oklahoma Territory. 

The Chairman. Will you kindly define the Cherokee strip? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. It is all north of that line [indicating on map]. 

The Chairman. Please put it in words so that it will be intelligible 
to those who may not hear you, if 3^ou can. 

Mr. Doyle. The Cherokee strip is composed of that part of Okla- 
homa 

Mr. Lloyd. Please give the counties, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. It is composed of that part of Oklahoma, as now con- 
stituted, included in the Osage Nation, Pawnee County, Noble County, 
Kay County, Grant County, Garfield County, Woods County, Wood- 
ward County, and five townships in Pajme County. The Cherokee 
Outlet, so called, was added under the provisions of the organic act to 
Oklahoma Territory in 1893 b}^ proclamation of the President. 

It was a part of the Cherokee Nation; 18,000,000, in round numbers, 
is^the amount paid by the United States, as awarded by the Cherokee 
Commission in their agreement in behalf of the Government with the 
Cherokee Indians, for that land, and then it was added to the public 
domain. The most recent part that has been added to Oklahoma Ter- 
ritory is constituted in the counties of Caddo, Kiowa, and Comanche, 
which formerly was Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Indian reserva- 
tions, but which have been recently organized as counties. I want to 
say to you, gentlemen, in regard to the question that arose as to 
the organization of the Indian Territory into counties, that in the 
light of our experience in connection with the counties that have been 
created in the Cherokee Outlet, that that experience has proven that 
you can organize counties in that country, as was done in that instance, 
where there was not a dollar's worth of taxable property, and where 
there was not a single inhabitant prior to the 16th day of September, 
1893. To-day those counties stand as prosperous as any counties in 
the United States. The governor appointed the first set of county 
ofiicials and everything started on that day. 

Homestead land is not subject to taxation until after a patent has 
been issued by the Government, but we have progressed, and have 
made counties that are just as prosperous as any counties in the United 
States. The provisions of the Robinson bill provido that the 25 
recording districts, which are tentatively counties, shall be treated as 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 69 

counties for the purpose of electing members to the constitutional 
assembl}^, and shall so remain until at least the first meeting of the 
new State legislative assembl}^. The conditions there now are, as 
you all know, merely subdivisions of their population. They have 
railroads, they have homes, they have churches, and they have schools 
within their towns. They have all that would tend to make at the 
outset good counties. 

Starting from the time the statehood bill passes under the provisions 
of this bill they are treated as a county subdivision of the State, their 
condition entirel}^ different from the conditions existent in the Kiowa 
and Comanche country, where there was not a dollar of taxable prop- 
ert}^, and where the counties started out in 1901 with county officials 
appointed by the governor, and where they are to-day good, populous 
counties, getting along just as well as an}^ counties in any part of the 
United States. I think, in the light of that experience, which has been 
observed b}' all in our Territory, that in these Indian reservations and 
in the organizing of municipal subdivisions of the Indian Territory 
there is no great problem that should deter an}^ person from consider- 
ing the provisions of this bill as being proper and beneficent in creat- 
ing 25 new counties in Indian Territor}^, as defined now as recording 
districts. 

The Chairman. I would like to get an idea as to the distances in 
relation to the line between Oklahoma and Indian Territory. The line 
begins on the north line and extends south to the north line of the 
Creek Nation how man}^ miles ? 

Mr. Doyle. Fifty-eight miles. 

The Chairman. And thence extends w^est how many miles? 

Mr. Doyle. Thirty-six miles. 

The Chairman. An thence south to what river? 

Mr. Doyle. To the North Fork and the Canadian. 

The Chairman. And thence west along the North Fork and Canadian 
how far? 

Mr. Doyle. Sixteen miles. 

The Chairman. And thence south from there how far? 

Mr. Doyle. Thence south 21 miles. 

The Chairman. To what river? 

Mr. Doyle. The South Canadian; thence following the meanderings 
of the South Canadian River in a northwesterly direction to a point in 
the south part of Canadian Count3^ 

The Chairman. About how far would that be — how many miles? 

Mr. Doyle. About SO miles. 

The Chairman. And thence south ? 

Mr. Doyle. Thence south to Red River. 

The Chairman. About how far is that? 

Mr. Doyle. One hundred miles. It covers 16 townships, 6 miles to 
a township. 

The Chairman. Have you finished your statement? 

Mr. Doyle. I have practicall}^ finished. 

The Chairman. Is there any member of the committee who desires 
to ask Mr. Doyle any questions ? 

Mr. Doyle. There is just one matter that I want to comraent on at 
this time, and it will be taken up in the argument by nty friend Havens. 
I want to sa}^ that in addition to what I have said regarding the treaties, 
that the treaty of the United States with France, or rather with the 



70 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

French nation, the treaty of cession of the Louisiana Purchase, pro- 
vides as follows in article 3: 

The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the 
United States, and shall be admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles 
of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all of the rights, advantages, and 
immunities of citizens of the United States. In the meantime they shall be main- 
tained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion 
which they profess. 

That is article 3 of that treaty, and all of what constitutes Oklahoma, 
except Beaver County, and Indian Territory are within the boundaries 
of the Louisiana Purchase. There, sir, is a solemn compact in a treaty 
of cession, a covenant with the French nation that the territory ceded 
shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States and admitted 
as soon as possible. 

Tliis clause in that treaty has been fully argued upon the floor of 
Congress^ts import, its effect on this Government under the provi- 
sions of that treaty, when the United States admitted Louisiana as a 
State and when Josiah Quincy made his great argument against creat- 
ing the new State. It has been argued and expounded in the creation 
of Arkansas as a State, and of Missouri, and of all the other States 
within the Louisiana Purchase, and no man has ever contended under 
the provisions of that treaty but what the right of statehood should be 
granted to subdivisions as made in this nation of that particular area 
of which I am speaking, with the one exception of the argument of 
Josiah Quincy, of Massachusetts, against the admission of Louisiana. 
Pursuant to that treat}^, when the Indian Territor}^ was segregated from 
that domain as it originally was, it was intended to create an Indian 
State. 

That was the purpose and the intent in the treaty of 1854, which, 
if carried out — and it would have been carried out but for the civil 
war coming on — would have formed a federation of those Five Civilized 
Tribes, and the organizing of a Territorial government over what now 
constitutes Oklahoma and the Indian Territory at that time. I saj^ 
that the treaty with the French nation is paramount to all these Indian 
treaties from the standpoint these gentlemen take, and that it was the 
obligation of this Government to maintain and carry out its treaties. 
I wish to call 3^our attention to that. It should be considered by this 
committee, and that they ought to abide by the conditions imposed by 
the Federal Constitution, and imposed b}^ reason of public policy, or 
on an}^ theorj^ that might be advanced here. 

We have fourteen hundred thousand people there within the bound- 
aries of those two Territories, and certainly we are entitled to all the 
rights, privileges, and immunities of citizenship in the United States. 
I say that when we ask it according to the provisions of the Qua-j bill 
and according to the provisions of the Robinson bill we take a ground 
that is absolutely indisputable when we claim that right, and no answer 
can be advanced as against our right. I want to say in conclusion 
that I thank you, gentlemen, for your kind indulgence and for the atten- 
tion that has been given here to m}^ argument, which I have made in 
my humble wa}^ I think I have presented these points, and have 
brought them to your attention, which in the fulfilment of j^our duty 
you will carry out. 

I would like jon to read those cases that I have spoken of in the 
argument here, and the citations that I have made in the treaty matter. 
They are very fully discussed, and I believe it sets that particular 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 71 

phase of the question at rest. I want 3^011 to consider the provisions 
of the Robinson bill. I want it considered particularly from the 
standpoint of chronology. It provides that the governor of Okla- 
homa Territor}^ shall issue a proclamation on the 1st day of next 
August for the election of 150 delegates, 75 from each Territory, who 
shall be elected at the next general election. That obviates the hold- 
ing of two elections, and we elect them at the time we elect the county 
officers and members of the legislative assembl}^ 

It provides a scheme of government for the election in the 25 dis- 
tricts that exactl}^ conforms to the provisions of our election law; that 
is, it provides for a minority representation. The governor shall 
appoint the election commissioners for each recording district which 
our law provides for each county, and not more than two of those elec- 
tion commissioners shall be of the same political faith; that is, it 
provides for minority representation. The duty of those commission- 
ers shall be to divide those 25 recording districts into precincts. They 
shall make proclamation as to what constitutes the precincts, and shall 
name 1 inspector and 2 judges for each of those precincts, and that the 
election shall be held at the same time that we hold the general elec- 
tion. They shall also receive the nominations of all parties, and shall 
prepare the ballots. 

It provides an appropriation for paying the expenses of that part of 
the election that is held in the Indian Territory. It provides that the 
constitutional assembly shall immediately convene upon the adjourn- 
ment of our Territorial assembly. We have got to have another meet- 
ing of the assembly in Oklahoma, the appropriation for it has already 
passed the house to take up deficiencies in the matter of appropria- 
tions, and such things as that. Our assembly convenes on the first 
Monday in Januar3% 1905, and continues in session for sixty days. 
That will take it up to the month of March, 1905. It provides that 
the constitutional assembly shall convene immediately following the 
adjournment of our Territorial legislative assembly, and that thej shall 
sit sixty or ninety days to formulate the organic law for the new State, 
to formulate a constitution, and to submit that and such separate 
propositions and ordinances as in their wisdom the}^ shall deem proper. 

If they do not adjourn from the time of convening until the extreme 
limit of ninety days, that takes it up to the 1st of elune, 1905. That 
only leaves from the 1st of June until the first Tuesday after the first 
Monday in next November to make the nominations for the various 
State officers, for the members of Congress that will be provided for, 
for the judiciar}^ the supreme court judges that the constitution will 
provide for, for a district judiciary throughout the State, and for 
county officers. Certainly that is a limited time within which to pre- 
pare to have those matters all presented to the people. It provides for 
an election for the ratification of that constitution and that the elec- 
tion of State officers and members of Congress shall be held one year 
from the next general election, that is, November, 1905. That will 
be about five months from the adjournment of the constitutional con- 
vention. And it provides that the State government, under procla- 
mation of the President, shall take efiect by January 1, 1906. 

Mr. Lloyd. In other words, the Robinson bill embodies your views ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir; it embodies my views. And I sa}^ to you that 
in taking up the matter of the passage of an act at this time we must 
at least expect to give not less than eighteen months or two years 



72 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

from the time the bill becomes a law in order that the provisions of 
the enabling act may be properly carried out, and in order that the 
people may have a proper and reasonable time within which to under- 
stand the new duties and all the duties imposed by that enabling act. 
It can not be done earlier. For that reason there should be no delay 
beyond this Congress in the passage of the enabling act for the new 
State, because the last vestige of the Indian tribal government will 
end March 4, 1906. We simply will take up the government of the 
new State where the Indian government ceases, and under the Curtis 
Act and under the treaties that have been ratified since that time all 
the members of the tribal governments are made citizens of the United 
States and the allotments will have been completed. 

The Dawes Commission say that their work will be completed not 
later than July 1, 1905, and for that reason the need and the necessity 
for action at this time by this Congress in the passage of the enabling 
act should be apparent and manifest to all. I hope, gentlemen, that 
you will view this matter in that particular light. While other 
people may say that it should be postponed to the next session, or to 
the session after that, I say now is the appointed hour. Now is the 
time at which we should have an enabling act to meet the conditions 
existent in our Territories. If you do not want to give us single 
statehood, if you do not want to unite these Territories as a single 
State, give us separate statehood for Oklahoma alone, without any 
infamous clause that those other people may be taken in, as has been 
said, by benevolent assimilation. There is no benevolence in it. 
There is no justice in it. 

If Mr. McGuire wants two States, and can impress this committee 
with the wisdom of the position he takes, then give us statehood for 
Oklahoma Territor}^ alone, and let the people in the Indian Territory 
work out their destiny as set forth by the delegate acts, or by my 
friend Judge Moon's act, that provides for the creation of the Terri- 
tory of Jefi'erson. I say we require action now. The time has come 
when there should be action taken by the Congress of the United 
States either one way or the other. I prefer separate statehood rather 
than that infamous clause that is in the McGuire bill. Those people 
have rights, and we ought to respect them. I say to you that two- 
thirds of the people of Oklahoma Territory want one State upon an 
equality. 

I hope, gentlemen, that if you in your wisdom deem it wise to report 
a bill emanating from this committee that you will report a bill on 
the lines of the Robinson bill. If a committee bill is to be reported I 
hope it will start with the provisions as set forth in the Robinson bill, 
with such conditions as you may deem wise. I want to say that the 
provision in the Quay bill, section 15, which provides for the aliena- 
tion and taxation of all Indian allotments in the Indian Territory except 
homesteads, is one of the wisest provisions ever placed or sought to be 
placed upon the statute books. The jjeople all demand it. The In- 
dians themselves demand it. The future prosperity of that country is 
dependent on it. They want no red-tape circumlocution through the 
Departments in the sale and transfer of those lands. 

The people are there to buy and the Indians, to a certain extent, want 
to sell, and the people want to purchase. They are there and are making 
homes, and they do not want to be hampered in the manner in which 
they have been. Those Indians are shown not to exceed 5 per cent of the 



1 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 73 

white men. They are able in every way to transact their own business, 
and that particular clause ought to be added to any bill formulated by 
the committee; that is, removing restrictions of sale for all lands in 
excess of homesteads, and making all lands in excess of homesteads 
subject to taxation from the time the State is admitted. It is just. 
It is wise. Then we will have the people of the Indian Territory sub- 
ject, in respect of property, to the same taxation that the people of 
Oklahoma ma}^ be. 

My friend, Mr. McGuire, will urge, possibly, that we have a greater 
taxable valuation. If that clause is added to the statehood bill the 
Indian Territory will have more taxable property than Oklahoma Ter- 
ritory, because we have within our borders 2,055,000 acres of public 
land for schools that is exempt from taxation for all time while owned 
by the State. We have 3,000,000 acres of public domain that has never 
been filed on and that is exempt from taxation until a patent uislj issue. 
There are 1,700,000 acres in the Osage Reservation exempt from taxa- 
tion, and will be, of the Indian homesteads, for twenty-five years. 
We have in addition to that 10,000 Indian allotments of 160 acres each 
that are exempt from taxation, and the Ponca and Oto Reservation is 
exempt from taxation, and the big pasture reservation of the Kiowa- 
Comanches, amounting to 480,000 acres, is also exempt from taxation. 

You will find from the last report of the governor of Oklahoma 
Territory, page 2, the fact that now, of our 21,000,000 only 7,000,000 
are upon the tax roll. I say as a matter of right and as a matter of 
justice and as a matter of wisdom and good statesmanship, under the 
existing conditions in both Territories we having 10,000 Indian allot- 
ments of homesteads of 160 acres, inalienable and nontaxable for 
twent3^-five years, that we need the Indian Territory as they need us. 
I hope that in your wisdom you will find that it is the part of good 
statesmanship in solving this great problem to make a favorable 
report upon the Robinson bill, or at least to report a committee bill 
along those lines, providing for one State for both Territories. 

I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of the 
committee, that you will find that the people of Oklahoma Territory 
and of Indian Territory will always honor j^our names and revere 
your memory if 3^ou will do at this time what we believe is proper and 
right by our people, and grant them the inestimable right of self- 
government we have been patiently waiting for for years. Year after 
year we have knocked at the door of Congress for admission. The 
time for action has come. It can not be postponed. We do not want to 
be compelled to take measures such as the people of Michigan, Arkan- 
sas, and other States took, and which were criticised as being revolu- 
tionary in their methods. Our people now confidently anticipate their 
poHtical freedom, and that this Congress will endow them with all the 
rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the nation. 

It is the part of wisdom and statesmanship to direct and regulate by 
law the creation of the new State in all preliminary matters, and we 
have waited for Congress to do this. I sincerely hope, Mr. Chairman 
and gentlemen of the committee, that you will make a favorable report 
on the single-statehood bill, and I assure you that all the people of 
both Territories will appreciate j^ our action and 5^ou will have the 
thanks and gratitude of all our people. In conclusion, I want to, on 
behalf of the people of Oklahoma Territory and the people of the 
Indian Territory, to thank you for the interest you have taken in their 



74 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

cause and the patient indulgence you have exhibited toward myself 
and the other delegates who have appeared before 3"ou advocating the 
cause of single statehood. 
I thank you, gentlemen. 



Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C. , January '28, lOOJf. 
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward L. Hamil- 
ton in the chair. 

Mr. Robinson. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
there is a gentleman here who wishes to take a train to-day, and he 
signifies his readiness to proceed. 

The Chairman. Very well. Mr. Do3^le had the floor when we 
adjourned. 

Mr. Doyle. It gives me great pleasure to accommodate Mr. Geiss- 
ler. He is my personal friend and has been for 5^ears. 
The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Geissler. 

STATEMENT OF A. H. GEISSLER, OF CARMEN, OKLA. 

Mr. Geissler. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
prior to the discussion caused by the omnibus bill introduced during 
the last session of the preceding Congress the people of the United 
States in general and even the members of Congress of the United 
States had given comparative!}^ little critical consideration to the ques- 
tion of statehood for the remaining Territories. While the bill pro- 
viding for the admission of New Mexico, Arizona, and Oklahoma w^as 
before your House and before the Senate the statehood problem w^as' 
discussed in all its phases, not onl}^ by the members of Congress, but 
also by the press and b}^ the people throughout the land. As a conse- 
quence much information was disseminated and many arguments were 
made and crystallized into ideas, and as usual there resulted a differ- 
ence of opinion in many matters, as j^ou gentlemen well remember; 
that during all this time no one ever questioned that Oklahoma is 
equipped and ready for immediate statehood and is entitled to the 
same. 

The history of Oklahoma is one of wonderful achievements; fifteen 
years ago an uninhabited wilderness, to-da}' a prosperous common- 
wealth containing 700,000 people, with a less percentage of illiterac}^ 
and a greater average of intelligence and productive energy than can 
be found in an}^ of the States of the American Union. Thousands 
have written of Oklahoma progress and development, many brilliant 
orators have praised her citizens, and poets have sung of the grandeur 
of Oklahoma, the pet of Congress and the pride of the nation; but the 
most eloquent of all was that silent compliment paid by the nation 
when, during all of last winters discussion, no one denied that Okla- 
homa is read}^ and entitled to have a star on the flag. 

This much being conceded, the next thing to consider is the details 
of an enabling act. The fixing of these lies with Congress, but since 
this honorable committee has asked the people of Oklahoma for sug- 
gestions and for their opinion, I have the honor to submit some reso- 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 75 

lutions passed hj the Republican count}^ central committee and by a 
mass meeting of citizens of Woods Comity, a county containing 50,000 
people, the most populous and the wealthiest county in Oklahoma: 

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: 

This is to certify that in accordance with a call issued and published December 16, 
1903, by the chairman and secretary of the Woods County Republican Central Com- 
mittee a meeting of the said committee was held at Ingersoll, Woods County, Okla., 
on the 22d day of December, 1903, and at said meeting the following resolutions were 
proposed, discussed, and adopted by a unanimous vote of the said Committee, to wit: 

'^ Be it resolved, That we, the members of the Woods County Republican Central 
Committee, reflecting the views of the Republicans of this county, do hereby unequiv- 
ocally indorse the Statehood bill introduced in Congress by our Delegate, the Hon. 
B. S. McGuire. 

' 'Be it resolved furthermore, That we respectfully, but earnestly, petition the Congress 
of the United States to pass this bill at an early date, so that the people of Oklahoma 
may have the privileges and benefits enjoyed by States, the affairs of which are 
administered by the Republican party. 

''Beit also resolved, That the chairman and the secretary of this committee shall 
prepare a suitable memorial embodying these resolutions, and that Arthur H. Geiss- 
ler, as a member of the statehood delegation, be directed to present the said memo- 
rial to the proper committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the 
United States." 

After the said meeting had adjourned a mass meeting was held and the said 
resolutions were proposed, discussed, and adopted by said mass meeting without a 
dissenting voice. 

Respectfully, C. E. McDaniel, 

Chairman Woods County Bepuhlican Central Committee. 

C. P. Green, 
Secretary Woods County Republican Central Committee. 

Mr. EoBiNSON. Have 3^ou stated from what body those resolutions 
emanated ? 

Mr. Geissler. I did; 3^es, sir. The resolutions so state. 

Mr. Robinson. What was the territorial limit of the convention? 

Mr. Geissler. The count}^ of Woods. These resolutions were passed 
by the Republican count}^ central committee. 

Mr. Robinson. In w^hat Territory ? 

Mr. Geissler. In the Territory' of Oklahoma. 

Mr. Robinson. And vrhat proportion does it bear to the entire Ter- 
ritor}^ in population ? 

Mr. Geissler. It contains one-twelfth of the population of Okla- 
homa. 

These resolutions, while onW purporting to contain the views of the 
Republicans and those in attendance at the mass meeting held subse- 
quent to the meeting of the county central committee, do in reality 
represent the sentiments of the entire people of Woods County and 
the surrounding counties. 

While, of course, I can not say what action the Democratic count}^ 
central committee would take if this question were submitted to it, I 
wish to point out in corroboration of ni}^ statement that during the 
last session of our legislature the question of statehood was discussed 
in connection with a resolution pending before that body asking Con- 
gress for immediate statehood for Oklahoma with her present bound- 
aries. The Democratic representative from my district, in explain- 
ing his support of this resolution, stated that he did support it because 
it represented the views of the people of his county without regard to 
political affiliations. 

Mr. Robinson. Where was this statement made ? 



76 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Geissler. On the floor of the legislature. 

Mr. Robinson. What is the politics of the county? 

Mr. Geissler. The county is normally Republican. 

Mr. Robinson. What is the politics of the legislator who spoke? 

Mr. Geissler. The legislator who spoke is a Democrat, Mr. McTag- 
gart, and I am certain Mr. McTaggart would be glad to reduce those 
views to writing and submit them, because I know they are his views 
to-day. 

Mr. Robinson. Did you have two legislators from that county? 

Mr. Geissler. We had two representatives and one councilor. 

Mr. Robinson. Were the}^ all Democrats? 

Mr. Geissler. No; two Democrats and one Republican. The two 
representatives were Democrats and the councilor a Republican. 

Mr. Robinson. How did the other Democrat vote ? 

Mr. Geissler. I do not know. 

Mr. Robinson. He voted against you, did he not? 

Mr. Geissler. I do not know. 

Now, gentlemen, if the Congress sees fit to admit Oklahoma without 
the Indian Territorj^, to admit Oklahoma with her present boundaries, 
the people of Oklahoma will, in my judgment, be satisfied. If Con- 
gress sees fit to admit Oklahoma with a proviso that the Indian Terri- 
tory may be attached as soon as it is prepared for statehood, thepeople 
of Oklahoma will, in mj opinion, be satisfied; but it is conceded that 
the Indian Territory is not ready for statehood at this time, and in 
fact it has been stated before this committee that Congress could not 
give statehood to Indian Territory at this time without violating 
treaties made with the Indian tribes. You gentlemen all know that 
Oklahoma with her present boundaries is entitled to statehood, and 
why, gentlemen, should it be withheld from us? 

The Chairman. Mr. Geissler, could 3^ou specify wherein it is claimed 
we would violate treaties with Indians by associating the Indian Terri- 
torv with Oklahoma as a State at once? 

Mr. Geissler. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the treaties be 
referred to, as I can not give their exact language. 

The Chairman. I did not know but what you might be familiar with 
them. It is simply a suggestion made in that behalf. 

Mr. Geissler. The point is, briefly stated, that the Government 
agreed that the tribal relations shall not be disturbed before 1906; in 
other words, that Congress will not interfere with their present gov- 
ernment. 

Mr. Robinson. Do you consider that there is a legal objection to 
the Indian Territory becoming a State ? 

Mr. Geissler. Mr. Chairman, I realize that the Congress of the 
United States has the power to ignore and override any compact which 
might have been or is made with any of the Indian tribes. Ours is 
the most powerful nation on earth, and we have the power to do a 
great many things, but not ever^^thing we can do and not everything 
we have the power to do is just and right. 

The Chairman. We intend to be honorabl}^ powerful always as a 
nation, I believe? 

Mr. Geissler. That has been the record of this nation. 

Mr. Robinson. But you place your objection rather on the moral 
phase than on the legal phase — that the nation ought not morally to 
do it. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 77 

Mr. Geissler. In my opinion, Congress has not a legal right to 
give Statehood to the Indian Territory under the treaties referred to. 

Mr. Robinson. They have, however, on a number of occasions taken 
the course of abrogating those treaties, have the}^ not? 

Mr. Geissler. Do you mean the Indians or Congress? 

Mr. Robinson. Congress. 

Mr. Geissler. Yes; that has been done. 

Mr. Robinson. Do you know about how man}^ times ? 

Mr. Geissler. It has been done ver}^ frequently. 

Mr. Robinson. And since those treaties were made the Indians have 
been made citizens, and other legislation along such general lines has 
changed conditions somewhat, has it not? 

Mr. Geissler. I can not state from my own knowledge what views 
the Indians have on the subject of statehood, but it is very generall}^ 
conceded, while some people in the Indian Territory are in favor of 
the immediate admission of the Indian Territory, together with Okla- 
homa, if it can be lawfully so admitted, that the Indians are opposed 
to statehood in any form. 

Mr. Robinson. Dealing with the moral phase of the question, you 
said, I believe, that Oklahoma desires separate statehood and would 
not object to the future incorporation of the Indian Territory as part 
of the State of Oklahoma at some future period. Would not this 
involve the formation of a constitution, the establishment of a seat of 
government, the acquirement of rights that only Oklahoma citizens 
would take part in and be the beneficiaries of, to the entire moral 
exclusion of all the people of the Indian Territory ? 

Mr. Geissler. As they say in court, if you wish me to answer yes 
or no, I should say no. 

Mr. Robinson. No; answer in your own language, if you care to. 

Mr. Geissler. The admission of Oklahoma at this time, with a 
provision that the Indian Territory may be attached, whenever it 
becomes necessary for statehood, would not necessarily mean the 
permanent location of State institutions or the State capitol. 

Mr. Robinson. And about the formation of the State constitution 
by Oklahoma, to the exclusion of the people of the Indian Territory? 

Mr. Geissler. The Indian Territory would certainly, under those 
conditions, not have the right to say what should be and what should 
not be in the constitution of Oklahoma until after Congress has decided 
that the Indian Territory is ready for statehood. 

Mr. Robinson. Could Congress then determine that the whole mat- 
ter should be opened up and the Indian Territory should participate 
in a constitution for the people of the State of Oklahoma ? 

Mr. Geissler. Congress would, in my opinion, have the right to 
provide, after the Indian Territory has been added to the State of 
Oklahoma, that then the constitution might be revised. 

Mr. Wilson. Or resubmit it? 

Mr. Geissler. Or resubmit it, or in fact that it shall be submitted 
to the people of the Indian Territory before they are so attached to 
Oklahoma. 

Mr. Robinson. In other words, 3^ou claim that Congress has the 
power over the State of Oklahoma after its organization to dictate to 
the legislature along the line 3^ou suggest? 

Mr. Geissler. No; I do not wish to be so understood. Congress 
would, in my opinion, have the right to require in the enabling act 



78 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

that the constitutional convention of Oklahoma shall ordain irrevocably 
that the constitution shall be resubmitted. 

Mr. Robinson. 1 have no further questions along that line. 

Mr. Wilson. In other words, you think a condition precedent 
should be placed in the enabling act requiring an ordinance of the con- 
stitutional convention which would bind Oklahoma to submit the con- 
stitution to the new State when it is newly formed by the adding of 
the Indian Territory to it? 

Mr. Geissler. I believe Congress would have the right to require 
that. 

Mr. Wilson. As a condition precedent to her admission? 

Mr. Geissler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there anj'thing further you desire to say, Mr. 
Geissler? 

Mr. Geissler. Nothing further, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I want to make one or two inquiries. If 3'Ou can 
remember it, state to the committee the population of Oklahoma now. 

Mr. Geissler. The report of the governor, made to the Secretary 
of the Interior, shows that last spring we had a population of 650,000, 
but every one familiar with conditions in Oklahoma agree that the 
population has increased from 50,000 to 100,000 since last spring. 

The Chairman. Of that population, how many are white? 

Mr. Geissler. All but 27,000. 

The Chairman. Of that 27,000, what proportion are Indians? 

Mr. Geissler. There are 15,000 colored people and 12,000 Indians. 

The Chairman. Now, as to the Indian Territory. As nearly as you 
can recall it, tell the committee what the population of the Indian Ter- 
ritoiy is. 

Mr. Geissler. The population of the Indian Territoiy is estimated 
at 700,000. 

The Chairman. Of the Indian Territor}^ ? 

Mr. Geissler. Yes, the Indian Territory. 

The Chairman. Out of this population how many are estimated to 
be white people, how many Indians, and how many negroes ? 

Mr. Geissler. There are white people, Indians, and 

negroes. 

Mr. Chairman, in partial explanation of the increase in the popula- 
tion of Oklahoma during this 3^ear, I want to say that the irrigation 
act passed b}^ the preceding Congress has caused quite a flow of immi- 
gration toward the western part of Oklahoma. 

Mr. Thater. Why did this law 3'ou refer, to affect the counties in the 
western part of the State an}^ more favorably than smj other counties ? 

Mr. Geissler. These counties are farther west, and while in most 
of them there are prolific crops in three years out of four, they would 
have no failures at all with irrigation. 

Mr. Thayer. Does not that hold true in the other counties? 

Mr. Geissler. The other counties are nearer the rain belt. 

Mr. Thayer. I do not get 3^our idea in answer to m3" question as to 
how it happened to affect those counties more favorably than the 
others. 

Mr. Geissler. In the southwestern part of the Territory the rain- 
fall is heavier, and the farther northwest you go toward Colorado the 
less the rainfall. Do vou understand? 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 79 

Mr. Thayer. I understand that, but I do not understand why peo- 
ple should go there to settle if there is less rainfall. 

Mr. Powers. I understand it is this way, Mr. Tha3^er. Having 
adopted the irrigation act, the land that is now arid at the foothills 
count}^ will be made more fertile. 

Mr. Thayer. I see. It is the anticipation. 

Mr. Powers. The anticipation of the water coming upon it. The 
section of the Territory he refers to is near the mountains where the 
irrigation will take place. 

The Chairman. If there are no further questions to ask Mr. Geissler 
we will proceed with Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Thayer. Do you believe in a single State of Oklahoma alone 
being admitted, or in connection with the Indian Territory? I was 
not here, and perhaps you have explained that. 

Mr. Powers. He is for single statehood, or for a statehood with the 
Indian Territory at some future day. 

Mr. Thayer. Then, you are for single statehood now? Would you 
prefer that we report a bill here letting in Oklahoma alone, or in con- 
nection with something else? 

Mr. Geissler. In my opinion the people of Oklahoma will be satis- 
fied if Oklahoma is admitted either with or without a proviso adding 
the Indian Territory at a later day. Of course there is a difference of 
opinion, but either one of these plans would, in my opinion, be satis- 
factory to the people of the Territory. 

Mr. Thayer. But you would not want to be joined to the Indian 
Territory at once ? 

Mr. Geissler. As I have pointed out before, under the treaties 
with the Indians, the Indian Territory could not be admitted at this 
time, and we feel that we should be admitted to statehood at this time. 



Committee on the Territories, 

Friday^ January 29^ 1904- 
The committee met at 10.30 a. m., Hon. E. L. Hamilton in the 
chair. 
The Chairman. Mr. Morgan, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. BICK T. MORGAN, OF ELRENO, OKLA. 

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my 
friend, Mr. Doyle, has kindly consented to allow me to speak at the 
present time on account of the fact that I want to leave the city to-night 
for at least a week or so. I certainly appreciate this kindness on his 
part, and personally I think Mr. Doyle is one of the best men in Okla- 
homa, but I think he is very much off on this question of statehood. 

Mr. Doyle suggested that I comment on one feature of the McGuire 
bill which relates to certain school lands in the Kickapoo Reservation, 
and, for fear I may forget, I shall say a word on that point. 

The Kickapoo Reservation is a very small reservation in the south- 
east part of Oklahoma. It was opened to settlement in 1895, 1 think. 
It is in the southeastern part of Lincoln County mostly, just about a 
quarter of a county. The point that Mr. Doyle has reference to is the 
claim that the McGuire bill does not confer upon the State to be organ- 



80 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

ized certain lands in the Kickapoo Reservation, known as indemnity 
school lands. There are 101,000 acres of the lands in the Kickapoo 
Reservation which have been selected by the Territor}^ as indemnity 
school lands, in Jieu of sections IG and 36, alleged to have been lost in 
the Osage Reservation. 

The Chairman. What do you mean when you say that these sections 
were lost in the Osage Reservation ? 

Mr. Morgan. The organic act creating the Territory of Oklahoma 
declared in substance that sections 16 and 36 should be reserved for 
public schools of the State to be organized in the future. Sections 
16 and 36 in the Osage Reservation were occupied by the Osage and 
Kaw Indians. The Usage and Kaw Indians have patents for those 
lands similar to the title held by the Five Civilized Tribes in the Indian 
Territor}^ The other Indian tribes in Oklahoma only held by Execu- 
tive order, you might sa}^, and never had an}^ patents. Consequently 
the United States has, through various treaties, opened the surplus 
lands to settlement under the homestead law. The Osages, however, 
hold their lands in common by patent and, of course, will have no 
surplus. 

Their lands are held in common and will be divided pro rata, or at 
least according to their value, among the entire tribe. Consequently, 
there were no 16 and 36 in the Osage Reservation for the schools. 
Now, the Territory of Oklahoma claimed the right, under a subse- 
quent statute, prior to the time the Indian lands were opened to set- 
tlement, to select in advance of the opening lands in lieu of such lost 
lands. Consequently, the Territory, a few days or a week before the 
Kickapoo lands were opened to settlement, through an alleged agent, 
selected over 100,000 acres of that reservation as inaemnity school lands 
for the alleged loss of sections 16 and 36 in the Osage Reservation. 

It happened that the proclamation issued by the President had a 
schedule of lands attached, providing what lands should be opened to 
settlement. This schedule included the 100,000 acres, described by 
quarter sections, which were afterwards selected as indemnity school 
lands, the Territory having made the selection between the time the 
proclamation was issued and the date the lands were opened to settlement. 
Homestead settlers, believing the lands were open to settlement, selected 
them as homesteads, settled upon them, and made their applications to 
enter the same. Those applications were taken to the Secretary of 
the Interior and finally rejected on the ground that the lands belonged 
to the Territory. These homesteaders have persisted in their claim 
that those lands were homestead lands and that their title is higher 
than the Territory's. 

In other words, they questioned the title ^f the Territory to those 
lands, and only a short time ago I was employed as counsel by some 
250 of those homesteaders. Although the case had been decided some 
five years ago against the homesteaders, I was employed recently to 
secure a rehearing on that question, and about three months ago 1 
filed a motion for review, with my argument in support thereof, before 
the honorable Secretar}^ of the Interior. He has granted a reopening 
of that case; that is, he has granted an argument, which is to take 
place on the 10th of February. 

I did not intend to refer to this at all, but Mr. Doyle, knowing that 
I was interested as an attorney for these people, said he was going to 
refer to it. Of course he will ask this committeee to amend the 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. Si 

McGuire bill so as to confirm those indemnity lands to the State reg-ard- 
less of the rights of the homesteaders. I am very glad that he made 
the suggestion, although 1 should not have referred to it at all. In 
the first place, gentlemen, 1 doubt whether Congress even could pass 
an act that would take those lands away from the homesteaders. 

Mr. Doyle. With the permission of the chairman, I would like to 
ask if it is not a fact that the occupants upon those lands since 1895 
have all been tenants of the Territory and are pajdng rentals to the 
Territorj" ? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes; that is a fact. 

Mr. Doyle. And that the McGuire bill does not regrant or reserve 
those lands ? 

Mr. Morgan. That is a fact, as I understand it. Now, if the gen- 
tleman from Oklahoma will come up to the office of the Assistant 
Attorne3-General for the Interior Department on the 10th of February 
and hear my argument, I think I can convince him that the Territory 
has no more right to those lands than it has to the ground upon which 
the Capitol rests to-day. 

It certainly would be an improper thing for this committee to try 
to defeat the rights of those homesteaders, and it would be an improper 
thing for the Delegate from Oklahoma to put a clause in his statehood 
bill that would interfere with the legal rights of 500 homesteaders in 
Oklahoma. If Congress desires to give the State of Oklahoma indem- 
nit}^ school lands, it has a perfect right to do so, but it would certainly 
be improper for Mr. McGuire or this committee or for the Congress 
of the United States to now undertake to legislate and thereby take 
lands away from homesteaders, lands which legally belong to them. 
The condition of those lands depends entirely upon the rights of those 
homesteaders at the dav they entered thereon, staked the ground, and 
built their houses. We do not claim any subsequent right and cer- 
tainl}^ this committee will not undertake to amend this bill so as to 
help the Territory to take from 500 homesteaders lands which belong 
to them as legalh^, in my judgment, as any lands that are held by any 
homesteaders in Oklahoma or any other State or Territory in this 
Union. 

Mr. Doyle. Have not the various courts held that the selection was 
properh^ made by Mr. Harvey and that the Territor}^ had the right 
to those lands? 

Mr. Morgan. No, sir. The question involved in the selection of 
the indemnity school lands in the Kickapoo act has never been passed 
upon b}^ any court in Oklahoma; never, sir. There have been various 
cases involving indemnity school lands, but these cases have involved 
different questions from those involved in the Kickapoo lands. 

The Chairman. I can see that this is an open question as between 
you two gentlemen, and the committee will be glad to hear the argu- 
ment as to this question, but it would seem, until a review is granted, 
that the question could be considered as closed. However, the com- 
mittee will be very glad to hear your argument, because it ma}^ throw 
some light upon what the committee may desire. 

Mr. Morgan. The Secretary has opened the case for argument and 
has set it for the 10th of February. If the committee at any time 
thinks of amending the bill so as to help the Territory to get those 
lands, of course I would like very much to be heard upon that point. 



82 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

However, this is a legal question which is in no way involved in what 
we have before us here. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the main question. 

Mr. Morgan. ^Tes, sir; I have reduced to writing what 1 desire to 
sa}^ simpl}^ because I want to be as brief as possible, and I thought 
that would be the best way. 

The bill under consideration provides for the admission of Oklahoma 
as a State in the Union, and requires, as a condition of admission, that 
there shall be placed in the constitution a clause giving Congress the 
authority and power to add in the future any portion or all of the 
Indian Territory to the State of Oklahoma. 

In my humble judgment, this committee should make a favorable 
report on this bill. The measure should pass both Houses of Congress, 
receive the approval of the President, and become a law at the earliest 
possible moment. 

I was not born in Oklahoma, but I witnessed the birth of Oklahoma. 
I have lived in the Territory since the memorable April 22, 1889, 
when the first strip of land was opened to settlement. I am proud of 
Oklahoma. I am sincerely attached to the people of this Territor}". 
I would not advocate any measure unless I believed the same had the 
approval of the majority of the people, and in the end would serve 
the best interests of all. I believe that Oklahoma is entitled to state- 
hood — to immediate statehood. Therefore, I have come more than 
1,500 miles, at my own expense, hoping that I might possibly con- 
tribute something toward securing the legislation desired by the vast 
majority of our people. My first duty — after loyalty to the Nation — 
is to the commonwealth of which I am a citizen. I am not a citizen of 
the Indian Territory. I am, therefore, not here to look after the 
interests of the citizens of that section. 

I shall say nothing, however, to reflect upon the people of the Indian 
Territory. The people of Oklahoma wish the people of the Indian 
Territory well. The people of the Indian Territory will not expect us 
to sacrifice our own rights and interests for their benefit. In my 
experience as an attorney I have observed that when I have a good 
case I generall}^ win, that when I have a poor case I am very apt to 
lose. With this thought in mind, I naturally have great confidence 
in the cause now pending, for Oklahoma has a good case. On her 
side is the law and the evidence, all precedent, and every equit}^ in 
the case. Some of the States have a statute authorizing the courts, 
on petition and proper showing, to change the name of a citizen. 

There being no court of competent jurisdiction to act, Oklahoma 
comes before the supreme legislative body of the land and asks that 
her name be changed from the Territory of Oklahoma to the State of 
Oklahoma. This brings me to a discussion of my first proposition, 
which is as follows: 

I. Oklahoma is now a State in everything but name and the rights 
and privileges which go with it. 

If the above proposition be true, there should be no question as to 
what action this committee shall take. 

What constitutes a State in the Federal Union? There must be: 
(1) area, (2) population, (3) adequate resources, (1) laws, (5) organ- 
ized civil government, (6) educational and other institutions. Okla- 
homa possesses all these requisites of a State in full and rounded 
measure. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 83 

(1) Area. — Oklahoma meets the requirement as to area. Within 
her borders are 38,958 square miles of territory. Fourteen of the 
States of the Union, viz, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachu- 
setts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, Maine, 
South Carolina, West Virginia, Minnesota, New eJersey, and Indiana, 
each have a smaller area tlian Oklahoma. Six of the States repre- 
sented on this committee, viz, Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Massa- 
chusetts, Maine, and Rhode Island, each have a smaller area than 
Oklahoma. As was asserted by Mr. Clark, Oklahoma area is larger 
than the combined area of the following States, viz, Connecticut, 
Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Ver- 
mont. No one can truthfully assert that these smaller States have 
ever been a source of danger to this Government. Aye, search the 
history of the past and 3^ou will find that these smaller States have 
furnished many of the brightest, most influential, and most illustrious 
characters which have ever occupied seats in our National Congress. 
Large area does not make a great State. Remember that the most 
valuable and precious articles are put up in small packages. But, 
gentlemen, when we point to the fact that there are now in the Union 
14 States with less area than has Oklahoma; does this not end all con- 
troversy? Why will gentlemen persist in arguing that 38,958 square 
miles is not large enough for a State when nearty one-third of the 
States of the Union have less area. 

My friend who opposes statehood for Oklahoma seems to think 
there is something in the Constitution which provides that the States 
in the West shall be larger on the average than the States in the East. 
I know nothing of such provision. More than this, it is not square 
miles which count. The important factor is the nature and character 
of the countr}^ included in the area. The comparison made before this 
committee, between the area of Oklahoma and certain Western States 
is fallacious. Many of these States are mountainous and in the arid 
region. The greater part of this area is, therefore, useless and worth- 
less because not habitable, or will not produce anything to support a 
population. Even this comparison made with Kansas and Nebraska is 
not a fair one. After a trial of over forty-two years, one-third of Kansas 
is yet sparsely settled. It is much the same in Nebraska. In consider- 
ing the area of a proposed new State you must look beyond the num- 
ber of square miles and investigate the character of this area. One 
illustration will demonstrate that I am correct. There is the State of 
Nevada, admitted into the Union October 31, 1861:. It has an area 
of 109,901 square miles, and yet in 1900 — fort}^ years after it became a 
State— had a population of onl}^ 42,335. One count}^ in Oklahoma — 
that of Woods— situated in the northwestern part of the Territory, 
has a greater population than this State, with an area of over 100,000 
square miles. 

My friend who opposes statehood for Oklahoma wholl}^ fails to 
grasp the grand possibilities of Oklahoma. As an agricultural region 
Oklahoma is absolutely unequaled. In no State in the Union can 
there be successfulh^ produced so great a variet}^ of agricultural 
products. We are not looked upon as a manufacturing country, and 
yet the United States census of 1900 shows that our manufactured 
products for 1899 were valued at over $7,000,000. 

Oklahoma should be compared to the Central West rather than to 
the arid mountain regions of the countr}^ Exclude Texas, which all 



84 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

admit is too large, and the States in the mountain region of the West, 
and the average area of the remaining 35 States is about 41,000 square 
miles. This demonstrates that Oklahoma's area is just about the 
average of those States in the Union, excluding those where the larger 
portion of the area is nonproductive and uninhabitable. Oklahoma 
virtually has no waste land. The great variet}^ of our agricultural 
products compensates for any lack of manufacturing industries. How- 
ever, those who belittle Oklahoma will in ten years from now be sur- 
prised at what manufacturing interests will be developed. 

These suggestions certainly full}^ answer the assertion that Okla- 
homa's area is insufficient. 

I Bui it is said that Oklahoma's boundary line is irregular, and this is 
urged as a reason why Oklahoma should be denied admission. The 
bounr'.aries of ever}^ State in the Union are more or less irregular, and 
no oae can show that a single evil consequence has followed. The 
people of the State I am sure will fare well if there is nothing there 
irregular or crooked but the boundar}^ line. 

2. Population. — Every State must have population. There must be 
a sufficient number of people, and of the right kind of people. Okla- 
homa meets both requirements. Her population is not less than 
650,000. One-third of the States of the Union have a less population. 
Admit Oklahoma as a State into the Union, and when the census of 
1910 is taken, she will have over a million inhabitants. This is not an 
extravagant prediction. With the allotment of the lands in the Osage 
and Kaw nations; the opening to settlement of the Otoe and Missouri 
lands; the occupation of the pasture reserves in the old Kiowa- 
Camanche country; with the opening and building of the hundreds of 
new towns and cities on the thousands of miles of railroad yet to be 
constructed; with the settlement of Beaver County, which is now 
rapidly going on; with the further growth of our present towns and 
cities, and the natural increase of population, Oklahoma, I repeat, 
before 1910 will have more than 1,000,000 inhabitants. (Par. 9.) 

Every State in the Union is represented in Oklahoma's population. 
Kansas furnished the largest number, 63,341; Nevada the smallest 
number, 22. Missouri, on the northeast, sent to us 47,238. Texas, 
the great empire State on the south, sent us 33,626 of her sons. 
Illinois came next with 27,255. The great State of Ohio contributed 
15,049 of her sons. The Hoosier State gave us 17,351; Kentucky, 
11,715; Tennessee, 11,768; Arkansas, 11,739; Nebraska, 9,146; Penn- 
sylvania, 5,709; New York, 4,035; Alabama, 4,077; Virginia, 3,689; 
Mississippi, 3,939, and Michigan, 2,592. The fourteen States repre- 
sented on this committee gave to Oklahoma 157,522 of her population, 
as shown by the census of 1900 — more than one-third of Oklahoma's 
population at that time. Oklahoma has not been entirely selfish. 
Having received largely from the States, she has sent her sons into 
all sections of our country. The census of 1900 found over 10,000 
native Oklahomans in the States of the Union. Though Oklahoma 
had been opened to settlement but ten years, the census of 1900 found 
native-born Oklahomans in every State of the Union except in Dela- 
ware. In view of this fact Oklahomans naturally take an optimistic 
view of the future of this countr}^, believing these native-born Okla- 
homans will prove to be the "little leaven" that will leaven this whole 
lump of our 80,000,000 of people. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 85 

As to the character of our citizens the census of 1900 speaks for us. 

Of all the white persons over 10 je^rs of age in the United States 
6.2 per cent are illiterate; in Oklahoma of this class only 2.9 per cent 
are illiterate. The white persons over 10 years of age in 34 of the 
States show a larger per cent of illiteracy than does the same class in 
Oklahoma. There are 14 States represented in this committee, viz: 
Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Maine, Missouri, Michigan, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, 
Tennessee, and Texas. The white persons over 10 years of age in 
each of these States show a larger per cent of illiteracy than is shown 
for the same class in Oklahoma. The same is true of all white per- 
sons over 21 3^ears of age. Of persons between the ages of 15 and 
20 in Oklahoma a larger per cent were attending school than were of 
the same class in any of the same 14 States. 

But one State in the Union — Kansas — had in 1900 a larger per cent 
of its inhabitants between the ages of 15 and 20 attending school. 

3. Organized civil government. — ^In every State there is an organ- 
ized, full}^ equipped civil government, with a complete set of officers, 
extending from the chief executive down to the school and road dis- 
trict officers — Oklahoma has such officers. The machiney of her 
government, including Territorial government, county, city, township, 
and school-district government is complete and in full operation. In 
the orderly and systematic manner in which this machinery moves 
she is not excelled by any State in the Union. 

Ij.. There 7nust he laws. — Every State has a code of laws which define 
the duties of public offices; guards the rights of persons and property; 
defines crimes and misdemeanors; provides for courts, and, in brief, 
a code of laws upon which the government rests. Without these laws 
there can be no State. Here, again, Oklahoma meets the requirement. 
No State in the Union has a more complete code and collection of 
statutory laws. Every right can be secured, every wrong remedied, 
and these laws are as well enforced as are the laws of any State in the 
Union. Indeed, the people of Oklahoma respect the law, whether 
that law is one of their own enactment or one which is enacted by the 
Congress of the United States. 

5. State must have resources. — A State must have resources from 
which support can be drawn. Oklahoma is not wanting in this respect. 
By the assessor's returns Oklahoma's wealth exceeds rS?84,000,000, and 
by actual count her wealth exceeds 1300,000,000. In proof of this 
statement I point to her annual agricultural products of 40,000,000 
bushels of wheat, 60,000,000 bushels of corn, 220,000 bales of cotton, 
and other farm products worth 180,000,000; to her 2,000,000 head of 
live stock, valued at $50,000,000; to her 2,500 miles of railroad, worth 
150,000,000; to her 310 banks, with 120,000,000 in deposits and 
$28,000,000 in resources; to her annual manufactured products, valued 
at $7,000,000; to her rich and fertile farms, valued by the latest United 
States census at $179,000,000; to her magnificent cities, prosperous 
towns and villages, and vast local trade and internal commerce. 

The value of the domestic animals in 28 States of the Union is less 
than the value of such animals in Oklahoma. Thirty-four — over two- 
thirds— of the States of the Union have a less number of cattle than 
Oklahoma. This list includes 10 of the 14 States represented by this 
committee. Twenty-four of the States have a less number of acres in 
farms. Twenty-nine of the States produce a less number of bushels 



86 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 



of corn. Twenty-six States produce a less number of bushels of 
wheat. Oklahoma produced more wheat in 1903 than the entire 
product of 21 States of the Union, as shown by the census of 
1900. As bread is the staff of life, Oklahoma may well be proud 
of the fact that she is doing more to feed the people of the United 
States than is being done by the combined effort of 21 States. Next 
to bread as an article of food comes beef and in furnishing this article 
of food for the people of the United States Oklahoma does more than 
an}^ one of 34 States in the Union. Oklahoma also produces large 
quantities of cotton, and is, therefore, a factor in clothing this nation. 

6. Institutions. — In every State thei'e are institutions for the edu- 
cation of the people, for the care of the unfortunate, and for the 
punishment of the vicious. Oklahoma is not found wanting in this 
particular. While Congress has prohibited her from erecting public 
buildings, except educational institutions, she has provided for the 
keeping of her prisoners in a neighboring State, and through a con- 
tract with private parties cares for her insane and deaf and dumb. 
Jn her educational institutions Oklahoma is hardly surpassed by any 
State. A competent judge has said that Oklahoma's free public school 
system is the best in the world. You can see undeniable evidence of 
the intelligence and good citizenship in Oklahoma in her 2,300 free 
public schools; in her high schools and denominational colleges; in her 
normal schools, agricultural and mechanical college, and in the Ter- 
ritorial University; in the work of her 2,500 public school teachers; 
in the 3,000 students in her higher institutions of learning; in the mil- 
lion of dollars spent annualh^ in support of public education; in her 
1,000 churches, and in the million dollars already invested in church 
property. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, these things to 
which I have called your attention demonstrate my first proposition 
that Oklahoma is a State in everything but in name and the relation 
she bears to the Federal Government. Having done this, why should 
there be delay in admitting Oklahoma as a State into the Union? 
This leads us to a consideration of the question of whether Oklahoma 
shall be admitted as a State under the bill now under consideration 
or shall be brought in as a State with the Indian Territor}^ This is 
the question upon which there is some division of sentiment in Okla- 
homa as well as in the Indian Territory. La3dng aside all selfishness 
and political considerations there are certainly some matters which 
will lead to a correct conclusion. 



INDIAN TERRITORY DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. 

My first proposition is this: The Indian Territory fails to meet at 
least three of the requirements for statehood. 

In discussing the qualifications of Oklahoma for statehood we found 
that there were six general requirements, viz, area, population, organ- 
ized government with officers, a proper code of laws, adequate 
resources, and institutions in keeping with the age in which we live. 
We found Oklahoma met all these requirements. Not so with Indian 
Territoiy. Admitting she has the area, population, and resources, she 
fails to meet three of the requirements, viz, she has no orgnnized civil 
government with officers, no code of laws, and no educational and 
other institutions such as are found in the States of the Union. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 87 

The Indian Territoiy, measured hj recognized standards, is found 
wanting. Unlike Oklahoma, it can not be said of the Indian Terri- 
tory she is a State in everything but name. Will Congress ignore 
all precedent and admit the Indian Territory as a State, without requir- 
ing it to go through the preparatory and probationary period which 
leads to statehood 'i Before a Territory is admitted, before the enabling 
act is passed, the Territory should come fully equipped and prepared. 
Every State which has been admitted into the Union has been required 
to go through the preparatory stage — the probationary period. 

Mr. RoDEY. How about California? It came into the Union under a 
militar}^ form of government. 

Mr. Morgan. That was an exception. I suppose the exception 
proves the rule. 

Mr. RoDEY. I simply called your attention to it. 

Mr. Morgan. I think that exception was more in name than in theory. 

If the Indian Territory is not prepared to come into the Union sepa- 
rately, it is not prepared to come in with Oklahoma. Conceding, as 
ever3^one must, that the Indian Territory lacks three of the important 
requirements of statehood, is it not unjust to Oklahoma to unite her 
with a Territory that lacks the qualifications of statehood? 

SINGLE OR DOUBLE STATEHOOD NOT IN ISSUE. 

The question of single or double statehood for the two Territories 
is not in issue. 

The gentlemen who oppose the bill under consideration proceed on 
the theory that this bill provides for permanent separate statehood for 
Oklahoma. Such is not the case. This bill contains a provision giv- 
ing Congress the right to add the Indian Territor}^ to the State of 
Oklahoma. The question of single or double statehood, by the pro- 
visions of this bill, is specifically deferred for future consideration and 
action. The question of what shall be the ultimate destiny of the two 
Territories is not before this committee at this time. Therefore the 
entire argument presented in opposition to this bill is devoted to prov- 
ing a proposition which is not involved at the present time. 

Under the terms of this bill an argument in favor of uniting the two 
Territories in one State is immaterial and irrelevant. Those who 
oppose this bill should confine their arguments to attempting to prove 
that Oklahoma should be compelled to wait until the Indian Territor}^ 
is prepared, because the real question involved is this. Shall statehood 
for Oklahoma be postponed until the Indian Territory is prepared for 
statehood? We insist that one of the chief virtues of this bill is that 
provision which leaves the question of the final disposition of the 
Indian Territory to the future wisdom of the Congress of the United 
States. 

Mr. Lloyd. You understand that there is another bill pending 
before the committee? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do you understand that we are considering the whole 
question together? If you do not, 3"ou ma}^ as well understand it now, 
because that is the fact. 

. Mr. Morgan. The point I make is this: The other bill before the 
committee provides that statehood shall not come until 1906. The 
point I make is that the real question is, Shall Oklahoma wait for two 



88 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

years for statehood ? That is what I mean by the assertions I have 
made. The bill which is before this committee provides that we shall 
not have statehood until 1906, so that their proposition, gentlemen, is 
that Oklahoma shall wait two years for statehood. 

Mr. Powers. While undoubtedly we are taking into consideration 
both bills — and I think that the gentleman from Missouri is exactly 
right — the Quay bill has never been referred to this committee. 

Mr. Lloyd. There is the Robinson bill, which includes the two in 
one. 

The Chairman. The Robinson bill is practically the Quay bill. 

Mr. Powers. You speak about deterring you for two years under 
the bills mentioned here. From your statement about how well you 
are getting along in comparison with the other States^ — 3^ou seem to be 
getting along splendidly — would 3^ou then keep the Indian Territory 
from having some civilized government and have Oklahoma adopt a 
constitution by her people and afterwards incorporate them without a 
voice in the constitutional law? Would that be in line with 3^our 
sentiment? 

Mr. Morgan. My position is this: Oklahoma is not only now but 
for at least six years has been entitled to statehood. Whatever achieve- 
ments have been made by the people of Oklahoma, whatever property 
thej^have acquired, whatever institutions they have founded have been 
built b}^ individual effort, industry, and intelligence. 

Mr. Powers. And the munificent support of the United States, 
larger than the donations ever received b}^ any other Territory? 

Mr. Morgan. Oklahoma has received no donations of land, so far 
as the people are concerned, the individuals, except as has been 
extended to every Western State. Congress has been liberal to Okla- 
homa, and in passing the free-homes act it did a brave thing, but yet 
nothing but what was necessary to place our people upon an equal 
footing with the people of Dakota, Kansas, and other Western States. 

Mr. Powers. Did you not get a greater benefit in the value and 
fertility of the land granted to you and the extent of it? Forming 
Oklahoma into a separate State, would j^ou deny to the Indian Terri- 
tory the right to form a constitutional government by this act, the 
corporation of the Indian Territory body politic into your State, or 
could it be done afterwards by an act of Congress ? 

Mr. Morgan. The people of Oklahoma ought not to be required to 
bear the burdens of the people of the Indian Territory, and it is unjust 
for Congress to require it. 

Mr. Lloyd. But would the Indian Territory be treated fairly by 
being incorporated either in whole or in part in the State of Okla- 
homa after you had formed your organic law? 

Mr. Morgan. Of course, the Indian Territory can do as it chooses, 
but my judgment is that Congress should do the best it can for the 
Indian Territory, and that Congress should give to the Indian Terri- 
tor}^ a government within the next sixty days. 

Mr. Lloyd. You misapprehend the question. After Oklahoma is 
formed into a State could any portion of the Indian Territory be 
incorporated ? 

Mr. Morgan. Certainly; and if the people of the Indian Territory 
saw fit to come into Oklahoma under that act, there would certainly be 
nothing illegal. 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 89 

Mr. Lloyd. But would it not require the consent of the people of 
Oklahoma? 

Mr. Morgan.. We express our consent in this bill. 

The Chairman. I want to call 3^0 ur attention to a provision in the 
McGuire bill, found on page 4, beginning at line 16: 

That the constitutional convention provided for herein shall, b}^ ordinance irre- 
vocable, express the consent of the State of Oklahoma that Congress may at any time, 
or from time to time, attach all or any part of the Indian Territory to the State of 
Oklahoma, and the title to said lands in said Indian Territory is extinguished. 

B}^ that it is intended that Congress shall have the power to attach 
from time to time, in its discretion, the whole or any part of the Indian 
Territor}^ to Oklahoma, and that Oklahoma shall give its consent in 
advance. I understand that as your position? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. I will say further that I did not see any- 
thing in the wa}' of putting even an amendment to that, as was sug- 
gested yesterda}^, whereb}^ a new constitution should be adopted in case 
the entire Indian Territory at any time ivas attached to Oklahoma. 

The Chairman. That would answer in part the suggestion which has 
been made, because Oklahoma, in that case, would be compelled to give 
its consent in advance that Congress should act in the premises. 

Mr. Robinson. You think there is no illegality in that it forecloses 
the sovereign right of the State to reject subsequent to its being done? 

Mr. Morgan. I think not. I will state this, that the»provision of 
this bill which has just been read by the chairman and the other pro- 
vision, providing for a new constitution in case the entire Indian Ter- 
ritory is added at any one time, answers, to my mind, the strongest 
argument that is made in favor of holding Oklahoma back until the 
Indian Territory is admitted, even if you desire, finally, single state- 
hood. 

Mr. Lloyd. What is the purpose of putting that clause into the bill 
if Oklahoma is really now entitled to statehood? 

Mr. Morgan. The purpose and object of that clause, as I understand 
it, was that we recognize in Oklahoma that there has been a difference 
of opinion in regard to what should be done. Oklahoma has main- 
tained for six or eight years that she was entitled to statehood, and, 
therefore, we have left that question to be decided for the future. 
We have been willing to put that in our constitution in order that we 
might proceed with our rights under statehood and let the Indian Ter- 
ritory be added w^henever the Indian Territoiy was ready, if in judg- 
ment and wisdom of Congress it was thought best and wise to do so. 

Mr. Lloyd. On the other hand, is it not a settled proposition if yon 
can get Oklahoma admitted b}^ itself without that clause? If Okla- 
homa is admitted by itself without that clause in the bill then you will 
never be bothered again with the question of the Indian Territory, but 
if the clause is left in the bill, then it is a mooted question until the 
matter may be settled ten, twenty, or fifty years from now. 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is it not better to leave that clause out and to stand on 
your rights that Oklahoma is entitled to statehood, as you have under- 
taken to show in your eloquent argument? 

Mr. Morgan. We have not thought it best or wise because we have 
some difference of opinion among ourselves and there was some 
difference of opinion in Congress all the time, and in deference to that 
we thought it wise to leave that question open. 



90 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is not the real difference in Congress, the real difference 
at 3^our home; that is, the question of single or double statehood? Is 
not that really the difference between 3^our people at home? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir; we differ on that some. 

Mr. Lloyd. Your argument has been to the effect that Oklahoma is 
now entitled to statehood? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. Without reference to the Indian Territory? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. Wh}^ do you not make 3^our bill correspond to that 
view ? 

Mr. Morgan. We have done this with a view to getting a majority 
in Congress to vote for it. 

Mr. Lloyd. Then it is not what you realty want? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir; the bill is just exactty what we want. 

Mr. Lloyd. You say you put it in in order to get the votes? 

Mr. Morgan. Of course, 1 did not mean that in any improper wa}^ 
We recognized the difference of opinion here. 

Mr. Lloyd. In that connection we want to get at what you want. 
I think every member of the committee wants to know what you really 
want? 

Mr. Morgan. We want just what the McGuire bill provides for. 

Mr. Lloyd. Then 3^ou want that clause in? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. If 3^ou were urging the bill vourself and w^ere getting 
just what 3'ou wanted, without reference to whether it would get 
votes, would 3^ou leave i\n clauso in? 

Mr. Morgan. Persona-!^, I would not. M3^ view from April 22, 
1889, up to the present time is that Oklahoma should be a State alone, 
now, henceforth, and forever; but, on the other hand, being so anxious 
for statehood I have recognized all the time that there were many peo- 
ple, perhaps, better posted or wiser than I, at least people in much 
higher authorit3^, who believed that those two Territories ultimately 
should make one State, and consequent^ I have alwa3^s been in favor 
of a bill like this being supported and passed in good faith, and it 
would be carried out in good faith b3^ the people of Oklahoma. 

Mr. Spalding. You do not believe that this provision of the bill 
would impose upon the people of Oklahoma an3" such serious hardship, 
but that it would be better to have it on and be admitted now than it 
w^ould be to take the chances in the future of getting in only what is 
now Oklahoma? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Spalding. In other words, the hardships would be small as com- 
pared with the hardships of still remaining a Territor3^, in your 
judgment? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. According to the newspaper report as to whether 3^ou 
shall have single statehood or double statehood, it is said to be agreed 
upon by the Republicans of the committee of the Senate that the two 
shall be be combined together. 

.Mr. McGuiRE. That has been denied b3" the chairman of the Com- 
mittee on Territories in the Senate. 

Mr. Morgan. I do not understand that there is anything settled 
until settled right. 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 91 

Mr. Lloyd. That is exacth^ the point; what is right? 

Mr. Morgan. The McGuire bill. 

Mr. Lloyd. You have said that it has been conceded that the 
McGuire bill is a compromise bill? 

Mr. Morgan. Compromises are generall}" the right things at the 
time. 

The Chairman. I understand Judge Morgan's position is that Okla- 
homa would rather come in with the Indian Territor}^ proviso than 
not to come in at all. 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right; but his real position is that he wants 
Oklahoma to come in by herself without that proviso, and the onh^ 
reason he agrees to it is because he thinks it would be more popular 
with the House and Senate. 

Mr. Robinson. I would like to ask as to whether you think that an 
enabling act passed should embody this provision or a similar provision 
of law: 

That said State shall never enact any law restricting or abridging the right of suf- 
frage on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, nor shall any- 
educational qualifications ever be imposed on the right of suffrage. 

If 3'ou have given stud}^ to the subject and are ready to answer, I 
will ask 3^ou to answer two propositions: First, as to j^our opinion on 
the right of Congress to bind a sovereign State in that form, and, 
second, as to the propriety of such a provision. 

Mr. Morgan. I have not given that subject any thought. I am 
willing to take statehood with or without it. 

Mr. Robinson. Pass the question then. 

The leading arguments presented in favor of combining Oklahoma 
and the Indian Territory in a single State will now be considered. 

First. It is asserted that Oklahoma has no coal, and that in order to 
control transportation charges the Indian Territory and Oklahoma 
must be included in one State or otherwise the people of Oklahoma 
would be at the mercy of the railroad corporations. This has been 
repeated so often that many accept it without question. But it is not 
true. The legislature of Oklahoma will have ample power to control 
the railroads. The corporations within the State are at the merc}^ of 
the State. Local corporations exist by the authority of the State, and 
foreign corporations doing business in the State are subject to State 
regulation and control. 

If necessary, the State could resort to retaliatory^ measures that 
would soon bring the railroads to terms. If necessar}^, the State could 
build a railroad and deliver the coal to other railroads, and compel 
them to deliver it to the people at such terms as the State dictated. 
More than this, experience demonstrates that the argument has no 
foundation in fact. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, 
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware get their coal from other 
States. It comes across State lines. The coal tields of Indiana furnish 
much of the coal for the great manufacturing city of Chicago. Coal for 
St. Louis, Mo., comes from Illinois. Coal for Kansas City, Mo., comes 
from Kansas, the Indian Territory, and Arkansas. This talk that sin- 
gle statehood would bring cheap coal to Oklahoma has been published 
throughout the Territories with the view apparently of frightening 
the people into favoring single statehood. Yet on investigation we 
find facts and experience demonstrate the falsity of the assertion. 

Second. Again, it is asserted that Oklahoma is pureh" an agricul- 



92 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

tural district and must always remain so, and must, therefore, be 
attached to the Indian Territory which has coal for manufacturing 
purposes. 

The coal in the Indian Territory is in close proximity. The large 
number of railroads leading from one Territory to the other will 
deliver this coal to Oklahoma towns at a rate that will enable manu- 
facturing establishments to be conducted profitably. Indeed, it will 
be to the interests of the railroads to do this. The railroads are inter- 
ested in developing every town and city along their lines. And to 
show that I am absolutely correct on this proposition I point to the 
fact that Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecti- 
cut, New York, New Jersey are all virtually without coal and yet are 
among the greatest manufacturing States in the Union. New York 
in 1889 did not produce a ton of coal, and yet in 1900 her manufac- 
turing products amounted to over $2,000,000,000; Massachusetts had 
no coal and vet in 1900 her manufacturing products were valued at 
over 11,000,000,000. 

Mr. Lloyd. In connection with coal, is it not true that the railroads 
charge very exorbitant prices ? 

Mr. Morgan. I will give you my opinion. The Choctaw, Okla- 
homa and Gulf Railroad charges $2.15 a ton for coal from South 
McAlester to Elreno, which is about 150 miles. I understand that 
the trouble is not so much with the railroads as it is with a company 
in the Indian Territory which has been formed for the purpose of sell- 
ing coal. They have contracts with all the coal mines to take their 
entire output at a certain price. Consequently, when you go down 
there you must buy from this coal company and the railroad companies 
have to pay $1 a ton to the coal company. It is these sales companies 
in the Indian Territory that make the coal so high. 

Mr. Lloyd. Why do you not get the coal from other States? 

Mr. Morgan. Because it is cheaper there. 

Mr. Spalding. What is the distance ? 

Mr. Howe. At Oklahoma City the rate for 120 miles is 11.90, and 
to Elreno it is |2.15 for 150 miles. The coal costs |4 at the mines. 
At Canon City — I have just returned from there and know the price — 
the price is $8 a ton, and at McAlester the price is $7.25 a ton; that is, 
to the consumer. You can get coal in Oklahoma Citv for $3.50 and 
U a ton. 

Mr. Lloyd. What kind of coal is that? 

Mr. Morgan. That is what they call slack. 

Mr. Lloyd. Very soft coal ? 

Mr. Morgan. The screenings. It is used by manufacturers. 

Mr. Lloyd. When we went through the Territory there was very 
great complaint about the price of coal. I do not know whether it is 
the railroads who are responsible for that or whether it is other con- 
ditions. If it is the railroads you might remedy it by a State law, but 
if it is due to the local conditions in the Indian Territory, you could 
not regulate it. 

Mr. Howe. It is due to the trust. 

Mr. Robinson. If there is anything unlawful about it, would not the 
fact that there is transportation between two States give the Interstate 
Commerce Commission some regulation over the rates and preserve 
the rights of the people? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 93 

Mr. Robinson. And if it was an unlawful organization which was in 
restraint of trade in a State it would come under the Sherman anti- 
trust law. 

The Chairman. Has complaint been made to the Interstate Com- 
merce Commission? 

Mr. Morgan. 1 do not know whether or not there has been any 
complaint. 

Mr. Robinson. Who owns the mines? 

Mr. Morgan. Different parties; different companies are operating 
them. 

Mr. Robinson. Did I understand 3^ou to say that one company con- 
trolled the output by some form of contract ? 

Mr. Morgan. My information from good authorit}^ is that there is 
a company which has made a contract with quite a number of the 
leading coal operators b}^ which the}^ agree to take their entire output. 
Of course this has only been told to me; it is hearsay; but I guess there 
is no question about it, and that the railroads have to pay ftt a ton at 
the mines of this company. 

Mr. Robinson. The people down there complain, but they do not 
complain to the proper Government department? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Llotd. This is a very important question, and it seemed to me 
to be one of the leading questions when we were there. Is it not 
true that these coal companies are owned very largel}^ by persons who 
are stockholders in the railroad companies? 

Mr. Morgan. I can not say. 

Mr. Lloyd. Take the Rock Island Railroad; do not the stockholders 
in that compan}^ control the coal mines ? 

Mr. Morgan. I do not think that is true. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do you know whether the railroad directly or indirecth^ 
is responsible for the condition in Oklahoma? 

Mr. Morgan. I do not know about that; I think not, but I do not 
know. M}^ opinion is that we should have a State, and then those 
things would be settled in a way that would not interfere with the 
growth and development of the State. The assertion that Oklahoma 
must always remain exclusively an agricultural State does this Terri- 
tory and the people an injustice. Even in 1900 our manufacturing 
products amounted to ^7,000,000. 

The gypsum of the western half of Oklahoma, used to manufacture 
cement and plaster, will bring Oklahoma great wealth. She has inex- 
haustible salt beds, which in time will be developed and add largel}^ 
to the resources of the State. In many parts of Oklahoma are deposits 
of valuable clay. Oil in paying quantities has been discovered. 
Oklahoma has immense quantities of granite of the finest qualit}^, 
which will be a source of great wealth. There is no reason why Okla- 
homa can not manufacture cotton on an extensive scale. The fact is 
few people in Oklahoma realize what manufactures may be developed 
and profitably conducted in the Territory. To indicate that I am cor- 
rect, I read the following dispatch to the Wichita Eagle, dated January 
23, 1904: 

TO BUILD COTTON MILL. 

Col. Alexander T. Hamilton, a member of the staff of Georgia's governor, is here 
from Rome, that State, with a proposition to erect in Guthrie and equip an extensive 
cotton mill. He met with every encouragement from the Commercial Club. 



94 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

CONCLUSION. 

In the remarks which I have made I have not — indeed I could not — 
give any adequate picture of the real greatness of our Territory. 
Oklahoma has become a great Commonwealth — great in area, great in 
natural resources, great in acquired wealth, great in internal com- 
merce, great in extent, variety, and volume of business transacted, 
great in the nmnber, character, and efficienc}^ of her educational insti- 
tutions, great in the culture, refinement, and progressive spirit of her 
people, and great in the magnificent possibilities of the future. 

Under Territorial government Oklahoma has demonstrated that she 
is worth}^ of statehood. Why should the people of Oklahoma be denied 
the rights, privileges, and blessings of statehood? Why should we 
be kept under the galling yoke of Territorial government ? No good 
and sufficient reason can be given. 

Under Territorial government we are onl}^ quasi citizens of the 
United States. We have no participation in national afiairs, except 
to pay our share of the taxes. We have no Representative in Congress. 
When laws are to be enacted — laws which affect our intei'est and which 
we must obey — our Delegate is allowed no vote. This is gross injus- 
tice. Every day that it continues our rights are being trampled upon. 
This is not all. We have no voice in Presidential elections. The 
people of Oklahoma are entitled to be heard when the nation chooses 
its Chief Executive; we are entitled to speak when the time comes 
to settle the great questions confronting the American people. But we 
can not speak. Our lips are closed; our voices are hushed; our 
opinions, our sentiments, our views, our ideas are smothered under 
the great incubus of Territorial government. Territorial government 
retards our material growth and progress. Every business halts and 
hesitates under its paralyzing touch. Commerce feels insecure; capi- 
tal is timid. The specter of Territorial government frightens it from 
us. Many people from the States dislike to invest their money in a 
Territory. There is a widespread opinion that the laws of a Territory 
are unstable and that its institutions and society are in a chaotic state. 
In other words, Territorial government stands as a stigma upon our 
laws, our societ}^, our institutions, and our people. 

A Territorial government is tolerated only through necessit}^ Its 
defects are glaring. Its faults are conspicuous. Its drawbacks are 
numerous. Its burdens are heavy. Its disadvantages are as the 
sands on the seashore. To further perpetuate it, after the reasons for 
its creation have ceased to exist, is oppression and tyranny. 

Statehood would increase our population, augment our wealth, 
attract new capital, revive business, give confidence to investors, give 
permanency to our laws and institutions, give new life and spirit to 
our people, give our country and our citizens a better reputation 
abroad, contribute largely to a higher intellectual and moral develop-J 
ment, provide a better government, give greater securit}^ to property,,] 
better protection to life and liberty, promote the general welfare, 
insure greater prosperity to the people, and in a thousand ways bless 
all the inhabitants of Oklahoma. 

Thereupon, the committee adjourned to meet Monday, February 1,| 

1904, at 10.30 a. m. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 95 



Committee on Terkitokies, 

Monday^ February i, 1901^. 

The Chairman. I understand that Mr. Chester Howe is to address- 
the committee next, Colonel Havens having changed the order. 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is the arrangement. 

The Chairman. Mr. Howe, are you ready to address the committee? 

Mr. Howe. I am entirely at the service of the committee, if I may 
place myself in that light. It was only because Senator Havens 
thought he was not quite ready that the change was made in the. 
arrangement, as much at his suggestion as at mine. 

STATEMENT OF MR. CHESTEE HOWE, OF WASHINGTON, D. C, 
AND OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA. 

Mr. Howe. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 1 want 
first to ask a question as to whether or not there are any members of 
this committee who doubt the authority of Congress to include the 
lands now within the limits of the Indian Territory within one State,, 
in common with Oklahoma? 

Mr. Lloyd. I do not suppose this committee would care to express, 
any view as to whether or not there is any question as to that part of 
the proposition. 

The Chairman. I think it would be well to discuss this matter upon, 
the theor}^ that the committee need illumination. 

Mr. Howe. Then, as a matter of information to the committee, I 
desire to state, very briefly, the history of the Indian nations and 
their title to this land. 

The Cherokee Nation — in fact, the period of migration of all of the 
Five Civilized Tribes west was between the years 1830 and 1840. 

The Choctaw Nation acquired its title to the lands originally under 
treaty, as I understand, in 1820. The boundaries were indefinitely 
described as running to the headwaters of the Canadian River. It 
was found in 1821 that the lands that had been ceded to the Choctaws, 
which were in lieu of five counties knoAvn as the Yazoo Delta, extended 
into what was then Mexican territory, and in 1821 a treaty was made 
limiting them to the west line of the Nation, or the boundary of Mexico. 
They held the lands under that treaty only until 1830, and in 1830 the 
treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek w^as made, approved in September of 
that .year, and by and under that treaty a patent was issued conveying 
to them the fee with a certain limitation, and the w^ords of the limita- 
tion were these: 

"To have and to hold, as long as they should exist as a nation, and 
continue to occupy the same." Those words of limitation are also 
included in the patent to the Cherokee Nation, that nation coming from 
Georgia. Also in the Creek Nation, in the patent conveying lands to 
that nation. 

Mr. Sterling. Was that the same land or other land? 

Mr. Howe. The lands included in their domains. Patents were 
issued under treaty stipulations, and those treaties were made with 
both the Creek and the Cherokee nations, between 1830 and 18-10, 
v/hich was the period of migration. 

Mr. Sterling. This land was not ceded to those nations that early.. 
That is the land they occupy now? 



96 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Howe. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sterling. That was a later arrangement. 

Mr. Howe. It was by the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, made 
with the Choctaw Nation, conve^dng these lands in that wa}^ at that 
time. Under that treat}^ patent was issued. Between 1830 and IS-iO 
the Chickasaws, who were their neighbors and friends in Mississippi 
and Alabama, made an arrangement with them whereby they secured 
the western portion of their domain, and the lands have since been 
held in common so far as the land and rights are concerned. 

An agreement was made between them and the United States under 
which they maintain a separate tribal government; but a Choctaw can 
live or take land in the Chickasaw Nation, and a Chickasaw can live 
or take land in the Choctaw Nation; but he is not entitled to vote 
except in his own nation, and was not prior to the passage of the 
Curtis Act, or even now. When an election was being held with those 
people they went over into the other nation and did their voting. 
They are borne upon the Choctaw rolls, even though they live in the 
Chickasaw country; the others are borne upon the Chickasaw rolls, 
even though they live in the Choctaw countrj^; but they have separate 
tribal governments. 

The Creeks had a domain that extended across and included that 
portion of original Oklahoma between the rivers bounded by this river 
[indicating on map], and extending west to the west line of Oklahoma. 

The Chairman. Please name the river, so that it may go in the 
record. 

Mr. Howe. The Cimarron River is the north boundary and the 
South Canadian River is the south boundary. The boundary ran from 
the north line of the Creek Nation directly west and included lands 
south of the Cherokee "Outlet." The Seminoles participated in the 
Creek ownership. 

The Chairman. Do 3^ou mean the Cherokee Strip? 

Mr. Howe. Yes; and for the information of the committee I will 
say that the Cherokee Strip, so called, is technically and correctl}^ 
known as the Cherokee Outlet; it having been given to them at the 
time of its cession by the United States as an outlet to the mountains, 
and to the buffalo and other game, they being a little farther to the 
east, and their country being out of the line of the buffalo range. 
That was the puraose, and it was known and described in the treaties 
as the Cherokee Outlet. 

The Creek Nation b}^ the treaty of 1866 agreed to the location of 
friendly Indians upon the lands west of the ninetj^-sixth meridian, on 
the east side of the Osage Nation; but there were no friendly Indians 
located that far east. Both the Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians, whose 
domain was west of about the center of Canadian Count}^ — in fact, con- 
forming to the west line of the Chickasaw country — were located 
thereon by Executive order. 

The Chairman. West of the west line of Indian Territor}^, if extended 'i 

Mr. Howe. Yes; as extended. 

The Chairman. The southern half of the west line of Indian Terri- 
tory, if extended? 

Mr. Howe. Yes, sir. In addition to that there was located, under 
that agreement, the citizen band of the Pottawatomie Indians, in what 
is now Pottawatomie County; the Iowa and Sauk and Fox Indians, in 
what was a portion of Lincoln County, and the Shawnee Indians 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 97 

between the two. in portions of each, and what was known as the 
Kickapoo, and others. They all occupied this section of the countiy, 
being located under the agreement of 1866. The intention was to 
locate friendly Indians upon those lands and, I believe, to pay about 
30 cents per acre. At that time $200,000 was paid to the Creek 
Nation. 

There was a little piece of countr}^ in here that was not covered b}^ 
an}' Executive order. It was the contention of the boomers in the 
early da3'S that the Government had purchased and extinguished the 
Creek and Seminole title upon that piece of land known as Oklahoma. 
It was an irregular piece of ground. Mv recollection is that it origi- 
nally contained 1,800,000 acres. That was Oklahoma originall3^ It 
was there the Payne boomers made histor}', and it was that tract 
of land which the Government, in its wisdom, purchased from the 
Seminole and Creek nations and opened on April 22, 1889. Following 
that came the other openings. First came the Potawatomi, the Sauk 
and Fox, and the Iowa. Second, the large tract of country known as 
the Che3'enne and Arapaho. 

Then, in 1893, there was the purchase of the Cherokee Indians of 
the outlet or strip, with the exception, of course, of that portion 
occupied b}' Indian tribes at that time. It was sought to extinguish 
the title of those people as far as possible b}^ treaty. They did treat 
with the Pawnee and Tonkawa, but failed to treat with two of the 
tribes. 

Again, when the Government established, as it did, between 1830 and 
181:0, the lines of the Indian Territory, and moved the Five Civilized 
Tribes there at great expense, they favored the organization of a gov- 
ernment by those tribes and treated with them practicalh^ as sovereign 
nations. There was a clause in those treaties limiting them to this 
extent, that they would never extend the limits of any State or Terri- 
tory over this countr}', so ceded to them, without the consent of the 
Indians. 

Mr. McGuiRE. What treaty was that ? 

Mr. Howe. The original treaties — the Dancing Rabbit Creek treaty 
and the original treaty made with the Cherokees. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Not to extend the limits of any other country' with- 
out their consent? 

Mr. Howe. Yes, sir; that is right, so far as that is concerned. The}' 
were guaranteed Indian autononw and tribal government. The}' were 
told that if the}' would go there and live, and move west of the Missis- 
sippi and leave their eastern homes, they could there live as they wished 
to, under Indian government. But the war came on. 

Everyone of these Indian nations was southern. The Cherokees 
were from Georgia; the Creeks were from Alabama, principally, and 
from Louisiana; the Choctaws were from Mississippi and Alabama; 
and the Chickasaws were from the three States of Louisiana, Mississippi, 
and Alabama. Their sympathies were naturally with the South. The 
Seminoles in the meantime came in from Florida, and they all owned 
slaves. The sympathies of the Indians were with the South, except a 
portion of the Seminoles, and in 1865 and 1866 commissioners came 
there and made new treaties of peace with these Indians, still treating 
them as Indians, in which and under which they acknowledged the 
sovereignty of the United States and agreed to abide by the laws made 
by Congress. 



98 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

In the case of the Creek Nation the}^ accepted all the terms. In the 
case of the Seminoles they did the same; but in the case of the other 
tribes, they did not^ The governments continued to exist. Railroads 
were built down through that country. White men came in; and 
white men had always been in, as a matter of fact. They grew in wis- 
dom, and they grew in wealth; and finally the United States Congress 
sent a commission down to that country to endeavor to make agree- 
ments or treaties with them. This, however, was after Congress had 
declared, in 1876, that the Indian tribes were not sovereign nations, 
and that thereafter there would be no treaties with them, but simply 
agreements. They failed to make agreements with the Five Civilized 
Tribes, but they made a report, in 1895, as to the conditions in that 
country. 

Whereupon there was granted the Dawes Commission, or the Com- 
mission to the Five Civilized Tribes, the full powers that the)^ now 
have. Still they did not have power enough, and they were authorized 
to revise the rolls of citizenship, to arrange matters so that it would 
be possible to divide this land among its several owners. They held 
at that time by the Indian tenure, partaking of the nature of both joint 
arid common tenancy. The Government was preparing and getting 
ready for what must ultimatel}^ come — the sale of the town sites, the 
protection of the whites within its borders, and the disintegration of 
the Indian government. Matters did not advance rapidl}^, but on the 
28th day of June 1898, the Curtis Act was passed, which absolutely pro- 
vided for what? For the abolition of tribal government. The abro- 
gation of all the former treaties by act of law. That is what it means. 
That is what it must mean. Here is the act. I am not going to detail 
its provisions, but will simply refer you to it. 

Mr. Powers. Have you a copy of that act to spare ? 

Mr. Howe. Here is a full set of the treaties. I have brought them 
here that the committee might have them for use. There are all the 
treaties. 

But one nation made a treaty or an agreement with the Commission 
at that time — the Choctaws and Chickasaws — which was known as the 
Atoka agreement, embodied in the Curtis Act. That is, it follows it 
as a supplement. The Creek follows it and also the Seminoles. 

The result of this was simply that it provided for an abolition of the 
tribal government; that each man, each woman, and each child should 
take his or her pro rata share of the lands; that the funds were to be 
divided and they were to cease to exist as a nation. They signed 
the Atoka agreement and commenced with the thing, and right there 
they stopped. The tribal goverment has been continued, as provided 
for in the terms of that act, until 1906. 

And why ? Because the title being in the nation it is necessary for 
a governor of that nation, in his official capacity, to sign the deed that 
issues to each Indian. It is necessary for this Commission to decide 
which is entitled, first, to take, and then to record, and to give them 
certificates of allotment so that they may properly describe the land. It 
was found necessar}^ to continue the tribal governments simply in 
order to carry out the purpose of the Curtis Act. In 1906 the terms 
of that compact will have been fulfilled and they will cease to exist as 
a nation and "continue to occupy the same." 

There are the treaties; Governor Powers has them in his hand. By 
their solemn act. between the Choctaw and Chickasaw, the Creek, 



\ 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 99 

Cherokee, and Seminole, covering all this area of countiy, the}^ have 
agreed to the division, agreed to the abrogation of the government, 
agreed as to the transfer of their lands, and have made provisions as 
to how it should be done and when it should be done and the manner 
and form and method by which it should be done; and the terms of 
that old compact have been absolutely abrogated b}^ their own act and 
by their own agreement, and are nullities to-day. 

Again, the man who insists that the Congress of the United States 
has not the power to extend over that country the boundaries of a 
State or Territory under that old treaty made in 1830, and back in 
those years when those treaties were made, announces to you that you 
have not the right to protect in their civil rights 700,000 people. He 
says to you that you can not give them Territorial government, for 
you can not, if you can not give them statehood. He says you can 
not, and that the}^ must stand there. He says to you that 200,000 
school children, without a possibility of obtaining that God-given 
birthright, a common school education, must grow up in that country 
in ignorance and possibh^ in crime. 

He asks from 3^ou the right to legislate against American citizens — 
for every Indian living in that country has been, since March 3, three 
years ago, a citizen of the United States, with all the rights, privi- 
leges, and immunities of such. He says to 3^ou that men who have 
moved there and who have town-site lots to which they have title, and 
property which they own to-da}^ as well as you or I, and who own 
their own homes, shall not be enabled to cast a vote in order to protect 
in any manner the propert}^ they have produced under the law; that men 
who have come there on the invitation of the Government, and who 
have provided for the settlement of these towns are not to have the 
ability or the opportunity^ to protect their own propertv. 

He says to you that all this is off, and he says to you that 3'Ou have 
not the authority at this time to extend the limits either of a State or 
Territory over the Indian Territory. Besides that, he displays, as I 
believe, lamentable ignorance as to the terms of those various treaties, 
all of which are placed at your disposal. That is all I wish to say upon 
that particular subject. 

Now, gentlemen of the committee, the question was asked me as to 
what was the present status of the title in the Indian Territory to their 
lands. There are five treaties. 

I was also asked as to what would be the proportion of the lands in 
the Indian Territory subject to taxation under the terms of the Rob- 
inson bill March 4, 1906; to which I will answer that under the treaty 
the Seminole Nation take their lands wholly and absolutely in fee sim- 
ple. The terms of the treaty are without restriction. On March 4, 
1906 — I think I can give it to you in acres, so that it will facilitate 
the examination. There are in the Seminole Nation 365,861 acres. Up 
in the northeast corner of the Territory there is a little strip of land 
known as the Quapaw" Reservation, upon which a large number of 
Indians have received their title. 

A portion of the land has been sold, and there are only 37,000 acres 
there, but they have title. In the Cherokee Nation the citizen gets an 
average allotment of 110 acres. I mean by that that he gets 110 acres 
of average value land. The land is divided into 10 or 12 grades. Of 
the very best land, under the return of the Dawes Commission, they 
receive about 57 acres per capita — every man, woman, and child. 



100 STATEHOOD FOK OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Powers. You sa}^ eveiy man, woman, and child? 

Mr. Howe. Every man, Avoman, and child in the nation. Of the 
poorest land he would get four or five hundred acres. Each 40 acres 
has been inspected and graded, and on an average thej^ receive an 
allotment of 110 acres of average-value land. Forty acres of this is 
homestead under the terms of the present treaty. They can sell the 
balance in five years just the same as a man can sell the homestead 
land, but there is a limitation of five years. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Five years from what time ? 

Mr. Howe. Five years from the date of receiving the certificate of 
allotment. Those are not all allotted 3^et, but the report of the Dawes 
Commission is that there is a large portion allotted. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Did 3^ou mean to sa}^ that the period of five jesn's 
would commence to run with each Indian at the same time ? 

Mr. Howe. No, sir. 

Mr. McGuiRE. They do not all get their patents, then, at the same 
time ? 

Mr. Howe. No. A large number of them have them. 1 think the 
last report of the Dawes Commission showed that they had allowed 
about two-thirds to the Cherokees. It is running as to two-thirds of 
them and is not running as to the balance, because the allotments are 
not completed. 

Mr. Powers. The limitation begins to run from the date of the allot- 
ment? 

Mr. Howe. From the date of the issuing of the certificate. In ref- 
erence to that, if a provision is placed in the statehood bill that the 
lands, aside from homesteads, can be transferred, that puts at once 
seven-elevenths of this country on a tax-paying basis. 

Mr. Powers. You sa}^ it can be transferred now? 

Mr. Howe. Not for five years. 

Mr. Powers. I suppose the allotment furnished here by the Chero- 
kee lands will be consumed by allotment. 

Mr. Howe. Yes, sir; that is how it comes to 110 acres of average- 
value land. It has all been appraised, all been inspected, and that is 
the allotment. 

Mr. McGuiRE. How much does each get, altogether, of the different 
grades ? 

Mr. Howe. The total acreage of the Cherokee country is 4,420,071 
acres and the total number of Cherokee citizens, including those who 
are entitled to participate as freedmen — j^ou know they get a small 
allotment — is ver}^ close to 38,500 people to make the division. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Do 3^ou mean 38,500 in all the nations together? 

Mr. Howe. No; in the Cherokee Nation, including its freedmen. 
The freedmen were the former slaves, who are borne upon what is 
known as the Freedmen roll. The}^ do not participate in the Cerokee 
Nation, in the rolls, except as to taking a certain portion of the land. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I understood Mr. Stevens to sa}^ the other day that 
they only discovered 48,000 altogether. 

Mr. Howe. He is mistaken, and the census in that matter is incor- 
rect. I shall be pleased to give information to the committee in that 
respect. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Of the entire number of Indians? 

Mr. Howe. Yes, sir. There are more Indians, more Indian people in 
the Territory, members of the Five Civilized Tribes, than are reported 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 101 

by the census, for the reason that the census enumerators did not get 
all; and the Dawes Commission, when the allotment has been made, 
have gotten all; and the Indian Office knows better than the census 
enumerators. I will get you the figures. 

Mr. Lloyd. Have you those figures ? 

Mr. Howe. I have; and I will be pleased to place them before the 
committee. 

Mr. Lloyd. Are the}' in the last report of the Dawes Commission? 

Mr. Howe. No, sir. 

Mr. Sterling. I understood j^ou a moment ago to say that if one 
of the bills became a law it would open up a certain proportion of the 
land for taxation now. 

Mr. Doyle. That is section 15 of the Qua}^ bill. 

Mr. Sterling. How is it possible to do that now, if this allotment 
is made under a treaty made with the Indians? How can it be made 
under the treaty? This plan of allotment is what you call an agree- 
ment? 

Mr. Doyle. No reference was ever made to taxation in these mat- 
ters. The Government inserted the provision that they could not sell 
for five 3^ears. The Indians themselves are anxious to have restric- 
tions upon alienation removed as to everything except homesteads. I 
say that decidedly. 

Mr. Powers. At present without the restriction they are not subject 
to taxation? 

Mr. Howe. No, sir. 

Mr. Powers. Are they anxious to have them removed and be taxed? 

Mr. Howe. They are anxious to have them removed so as to have 
the right of alienation. 

Mr. Sterling. They would rather pay taxes than have the limitation ? 

Mr. Howe. As to all but homesteads. That is reserved for twenty- 
one years. 

Mr. Powers. Is there anv petition, or anything showing that gen- 
eral desire among the Indians ? 

Mr. Howe. I am unable to sa}^ as to that; but there will be no 
question whatever as to our ability to fill one part of this room with 
petitions of that character if that is desirable. 

As to the- justice of taxing them, I want to say that I am both rent- 
ing and subrenting lands in that country, and I know what they are 
worth. Broken land in that country, land under cultivation, rents for 
$2.50 per acre, cash rent, per year. Hay land last \eQ.v was as high 
as a dollar. Hay was scarce, but it has been heretofore 50 cents. 
New land for cultivation rents for the first year at 50 cents, the second 
3'ear at $1, the third year for $1.50, and thereafter, the lands being 
used for five years under the law, $2.50. The man who has excess 
land and who does not wish to sell it, the Indian — and I use the term 
"Indian" as being a member of one of the tribal governments — is 
enabled to rent it at such prices that there will be no hardship in ask- 
ing him to bear his proportion of the burdens of a government in 
which he participates as fully as he does. 

The reverse would be true if those people w^ere blanket Indians; 
but 3' ou are dealing now with the Five Civilized Tribes, people who 
have been wealth3^ for 3^ears, who have to-da3^ a S3^stem of schools of 
their own and churches, and whose delegates, if they had come before 
3^ou, as they have before the Indian committee many times 



102 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Sterling. Do those Indians have individual ownership of per- 
sonal property ? 

Mr. Howe. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Steeling. Are their herds owned in common ? 

Mr. Howe. Nothing is owned in common in the Indian Territorv 
except the land. There has not been anything;' owned in common in 
the Indian Territory for years except the land. When the Dawes 
Commission was enrolling the Cherokee people, and had enrolled 
32,000 of them, they found 2,700 full bloods and over 29,000 people of 
mixed blood. Such was their report made in 1901 or 1902. That was 
the last statistical information I was able to obtain as to the number. 
That refers to the Cherokee Nation. Among the Delawares there are 
onl}^ 343 full bloods, and of the mixed bloods, 64:6. While the esti- 
mates originally made by the agent at the Union Agency in 1902 were 
61,000 individuals, there are actuall}^ in the Territory, as shown b}" 
the allotments, onh^ one statement of which is estimated, of Choctaws, 
17,972; Chickasaws, 6,176 — that does not inchide the freedmen — 
Creeks, including freedmen, who take full rights in that nation, 
15,177 

Mr. Sterling. Does this include mixed bloods and all? 

Mr. How^E. Yes, sir; of Cherokee, including freedmen, 38,500; 
Seminole, 2,757. If you desire, I will give vou the total. 

Mr. Sterling. I understand those are all the Indians in the entire 
countiy called Indian Teriitoiy ? 

Mr. Howe. Yes, sir; and that includes 5,000 freedmen of no Indian 
blood in the Creek Nation. There are about 500 freedmen, who have 
no Indian blood, in the Seminole Nation; and it includes about 3,000, 
or fully that number, of freedmen who have no Indian blood, in the 
Cherokee Nation. 

Mr. Doyle. Explain about how manv have intermarried. 

Mr. Howe. I will. 

Mr. Sterling. What is the grand total of those Indians 3^ou have 
referred to ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. About 70,000 Indians, excluding the freedmen, is 
it not? 

Mr. Howe. No; I think it includes them. 

Mr. Sterling. You call them Indians, however slight the Indian 
blood may be ? 

Mr. How^E. Yes, sir; if they have membership in the nation. That 
is the test as to whether a man is an Indian or not. A full-blood 
negro in the Creek Nation who is enrolled as a Creek ranks as a Creek 
Indian. He has Creek property" rights. He is on the rolls, and he 
draws annuities. He participates in the funds that may arise. He is 
borne upon the roll as an Indian, and he is a member of the Creek 
Nation. That is all. 

Mr. Sterling. Where do you get these figures? 

Mr. Howe. From the Indian Office and from the reports of the 
Dawes Commission. 

Mr. Sterling. What do you mean by the Indian Office ? 

Mr. Howe. I mean the office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 
I think the}^ are official. I do not think it either; the}^ are given to 
me as official. As to the percentage of full-bloods in this country, in 
the Creek Nation there is a band of Indians known as the Snake band — ■ 
the Crazy Snake band they are sometimes called. The}^ are full-bloods. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 103 

banded together, and they include full-blood Choctaw and Chickasaw. 
There are between four and live thousand men, women, and children. 
No one can get an exact census, but that is ver}^ close to it. In the 
Cherokee Nation there is what is known as the Katoosa band, and aside 
from that there are practicaH}^ no full-blood Indians in that country. 
The Katoosa number about 3,000 and the Snake band about 4,000, 
making about 7,000 as a total — about 1 per cent of the entire popula- 
tion of the Territory and 10 per cent of the Indians. 

Mr. PowEKS. What is the population by the census? 

Mr. Howe. Three hundred and ninety thousand at the time it was 
taken; but you can easily see from the fact that the enumerators missed 
20,000 Indians that it was not a yery close census. 

Mr. Powers. I can see that eyery man who mig-ht not put himself 
down as an Indian for the census would be glad to be an Indian when 
it comes to dividing the land. 

Mr. Howe. Yes; and there are m that countr}^ quite a number of 
intermarried citizens and white men married into the tribes under 
tribal law j^ears ago. 

A Member. How many men married into the Cherokee Nation? 

Mr. Howe. M}^ figures fail me as to that. 

A Member. Nearly 3,000? 

Mr. Howe. Yes; and it also runs about the same in regard to the 
Choctaws and Chickasaws. That is a good farming countr3\ 

Mr. Sterling. Do those white men get allotments? 

Mr. How^e. Those white men who married prior to the Curtis 
Act mai'ried in conformity with the tribal law, and were enrolled; 
but those who did not are not enrolled. The}^ must have married in 
conformit}^ with the tribal law, or else they are not enrolled. 

There are 7,000 Indians in the Territory of full blood. I have been 
all oyer the countr}^ from one end to the other. I returned about a 
week ago after haying spent about two months in the Indian Territor}" 
and Oklahoma, and during all my travels in the Indian Territory I 
never saw a blanket Indian. 

I do not think there is one in the Indian Territory. I mean to sa}^ 
that there are no blanket Indians in Indian Territor}": or if there are 
I was unable to find them, and I never saw one. I do not believe any 
of the gentlemen here who have been across that country ever have 
seen any. 

Mr. Sterling. Do the}" live in villages or in houses? 

Mr. Howe. Certainly. 

Mr. Sterling. Are the}" distributed around throughout the Territory ? 

Mr. Howe. Yes; they are distributed around. It is the universal cus- 
tom among the full-bloods to live in communities. They get together 
in small numbers. They build houses close together and live in small 
villages. They do this usually at some place where there is shade and 
water. The cultivation of their lands, or the rental of their lands is 
outside, and they are not out upon separate and distinct farms, as is 
the case, of course, among the wdiite settlers who take lands. 

That is not true, however, of the 90 per cent of the Indians who are 
white. They go out and establish ranches and live as other people 
live, and have all the needs that other people have. The Cherokee 
country is dotted with homes of a good character — Indian homes. 

A Member. Is there any such custom in any of the Five Tribes of 
the people living together in villages? 



104 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Howe. No; but they have little congregations rather close 
together. 

A Member. Is it not a fact that each one of the full-blood Indians 
lives on a little farm of his own ? 

Mr. Howe. Yes, sir; and cultivates it, too. 

Mr. Lloyd. I want to ask one question. Suppose a white man 
marries an Indian woman and afterwards marries a white woman; how 
about the rights of property ? 

Mr. Howe. I will answer that question gladly, because it has 
recently been up before the citizenship court down there. Judge 
Clayton rendered a decision, and Judge Townsend, also, in the south- 
ern and central districts of the Indian Territory, to this effect: That 
under the laws of the Choctaw Nation, providing for the admission of 
citizens, a white man who married an Indian woman in conformity 
with the Choctaw law, became, by reason of that marriage, a citizen 
of the Choctaw Nation. 

He was just as much a citizen of that nation as though he had been 
born of Indian blood in the nation. In the case before the court, the 
wife died, and the court held that the death of the wife did not deprive 
the husband of that citizenship. He was still a citizen. He had 
acquired it by a legal act in a legal manner. He subsequently married 
a white woman, and that act did not deprive him of property rights, 
nor of his citizenship, and his children, by that white wife, containing* 
no Indian blood, were held to be citizens just as much as though they 
had been admitted. That was the decision of the court. 

The citizenship court recently constituted in the Indian Territory 
has affirmed that decision within the past two weeks, I am informed, 
and held that he was a citizen b}^ reason of his having an Indian wife, 
and that b}^ her death he did not lose that citizenship. I have not 
seen the decision and all its reasoning, but I know that it was decided. 

Mr. Doyle. It was decided as to the children of the second wife, 
but not as to himself. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is that a settlement of the question ? 

Mr. Doyle. There is no appeal as the citizenship court is consti- 
tuted, and I judge it is. 

Mr. Sterling. That would not affect the property rights ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes; it could take from him the allotment and the 
right to participate. 

Mr. Sterling. In vested rights; in property? 

Mr. Doyle. They can not have vested rights in the Indian Terri- 
tory, except under this allotment. 

Mr. Sterling. I mean personal property. 

Mr. Doyle. Oh. no. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Suppose he had taken his allotment and received a 
patent? 

Mr. Doyle. The tribal government is gone then. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I sa}^, suppose a white man who married an Indian 
woman has taken an allotment and received his patent, and prior to 
the time of the completion of the allotting process his Indian wife dies 
and he marries a white woman, he still retains that allotment? 

,Mr. Doyle. Yes; but the children of the second wife are not citizens 
b}^ reason of that second marriage. 

Mr. Howe. Gentlemen of the committee, I agreed to be brief, and 
I am trying to be. In the Creek country the allotments are in differ- 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 105 

ent form. They follow the old allotment act in this, that they take 
160 acres, everv man, woman, and child. There is a surplus of 
600,000acres to be sold. 

There is no treaty provision for the sale, but the Dawes Commission 
have asked for legislative authority to sell it, and I understand it is 
favorably recommended by the Department, and undoubtedly it will 
be granted. They get 160 acres, 40 of which is inalienable for twenty - 
one 3^ears. The other is subject to sale now, and is being sold now. 
The allotments are completed, practically. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Is the Creek Nation the only nation that is in that 
condition where they can sell the residue at this time '( 

Mr. Howe. The Creek and Sem-inole. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Please indicate to the committee the location of the 
Creek and Seminole nations which are given the privilege of dispos- 
ing of all but the 10 acres now. 

Mr. Howe. Gladly, for Mr. McGuire's information. 

The highest part is there [indicating on map] adjoining Oklahoma, 
as all the others are. It runs down in that direction [indicating]. 
The area of the Creek Nation is 3,079,086. Deduct 600,000 acres 
excess, and three-fourths of the area of allotted lands would be 
1,859,313 acres. Sev^en-elevenths of the Cherokee lands as allotted 
would be 2,812,796 acres. 

Now, in the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, under their treaties, 
the}^ take 320 acres of average- value land, the same as in the case of 
the Cherokees. Some would take as much as 1,000 or 1,200 acres per 
capita, or 4,000 of the very poorest. The smallest amount to be taken 
is 160. 

The Chairman. What is the "average- value land? " 

Mr. Howe. You were out of the room when I explained that. I 
will gladly do it again. 

The Chairman. No; I will withdraw the question, because I will see 
your explanation when I read your remarks. 

Mr. Howe. This land goes to every man, woman, and child, and the 
terms under which it can be sold, under the existing law, are one- 
fourth of the surplus — that is, the homestead of a Choctaw or a Chicka- 
saw is 160 acres of average-value land. The total allotment is 320 
acres; 160 acres of average-value land is the surplus. 

Aside from the homestead, one-quarter can be sold in one year, one- 
quarter of the total quantit}' can be sold in three years, and the bal- 
ance in five years under the existing law if the right of alienation were 
conferred as contained in the Quay bill, and as it ought to be, for, as I 
have mentioned, in this country, aside from the other reservations 
subject to taxation, there are 4,783,303 acres of land. I have men- 
tioned the price as to rental values. It is in the Choctaw Nation that 
the coal reservations are. There is set aside and reserved by the Sec- 
retary of the Interior, under the terms of the supplemental agree- 
ment that you have there, to be sold by March 25 of this year — although 
they have not taken steps to do it and I understand they expect to 
extend it on account of the work connected with it — 444,000 acres of 
the most valuable coal deposit in the world. 

Mr. LiLLEY. The Government owns it? 

Mr. Howe. The Indians own it; they own all that land. 

Mr. Powers. And when the Govern ment sells it, it goes to the Indian 
fund ? 



106 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Howe. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Powers. You spoke about the removal of restrictions upon 
sale. I have had something to do with the taking care of a couple of 
tribes of Indians. We did not permit them to sell the land. We found 
we had to stop it, otherwise thev would give away everything the^^ had. 

Mr. Howe. That is absolute h' correct in principle, and would be 
right; but let me call attention to the things that have been done here. 
If you were going to take from them all the land it would be another 
proposition. When the Che3^eime and Arapahoe Indians sold their land 
out here [indicating on map] the}^ reserved an allotment for each per- 
son. Down here are these nations with 320,000 acres of fine land, and 
running in the very best of this cotton land, 241 and 245 acres per 
capita to a family of 4, 5, 6, or 8 people — from 1,200 to 3,000 acres for 
each family. One-half of that they can not sell for twenty-one years. 
One-half of all the land they take they can not transfer, that is 
reserved and preserved for them. 

Aside from that, one- quarter will go in one year, one-quarter in 
three years, and the balance in five 3^ears. It is simply a matter of 
time, and of waiting one, two, or three years. It will be sold anywa}^ 
The part that is not reserved under the twenty-one-year reservation can 
be put on the tax roll without doing the people one particle of injury. 
It simply advances the time. 

Mr. Steeling. How is Congress to know that they want this done? 

Mr. Howe. There is not any way on earth to ascertain that except 
to inquire of such men as Mr. Henshaw, Mr. Powell, and the men 
who are there and who know; and also, if Congress desires it, the 
members of the Indian government themselves, because there is not 
any question as to their position. In regard to that, the way in which 
the}' look at it now, it goes in driblets and they can not get the price 
for it in selling 20 acres of land that the}' would get if it amounted to 
a 160-acre farm. 

Mr. Sterling. It seems to me that Congress would not have any 
right to make a law to that efi'ect unless there was an individual agree- 
ment with every member of that tribe. He has already made an 
agreement, and it would be a violation of that agreement, it would 
seem to me, unless there should be a new agreement. 

Mr. Howe. Let me direct your attention to this fact: That matter 
was settled in the Supreme Court in the case of the Cherokee Nation 
V. Hitchcock, as to the right of Congress to legislate for these tribes, 
upon the oil-lease proposition. 

Mr. PoAVERS. There is no question as to the right. 

Mr. Parker. These tribes were visited by the Dawes Commission 
several times, with a view to making agreements, and every one wanted 
the power to alienate this land without any restriction. The Dawes 
Commission did not want to have it that way, and particularly the 
secretary did not. 

The Chairman. Do you want to be interrupted? 

Mr. Howe. Certainly. 

Mr. McGuire. Is it not a matter within the knowledge of every 
member of the committee, as well as of Mr. Howe, who is addressing 
you, that it is the policy of the Government to preserve intact the 
property of each of these Indians,because it has always been the dis- 
position of the Indian, as soon as any property is turned into cash, to 
spend any amount received in twenty-four hours? 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 107 

Mr. HoAVE. 1 will answer that. The Government has dispkyed its 
purpose in this matter in providing for the sale of the lands of which 
I speak. The}^ simply put a little time limit upon it, upon the theorj^ 
that they would take their individual holdings and break off from the 
tribal government. The}" did not understand that these people had 
practically taken individual holdings long ago. What does it add to 
or take from the situation of an Indian, if he be a full-blood, to add 
five 3'ears to his life before he can sell? 

I am credibly informed, and understand it to be a fact, that the 
Indian Committee have notified the Dawes Commission that their 
tenure of life is limited to the next fiscal year, and that they must 
get through in that time. 

Mr. Powers. Do you know what they say about what has been done 
under the Dawes Commission? 

Mr. Howe. I would rather 5^ou should see those gentlemen. They 
could tell 3^ou better than I could, or w^ould be w^arranted in doing. 

Mr. Powders. The Dawes Commission is nearly through? 

Mr. Howe. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Powers. Their work is nearl}^ done. 

Mr. Howe. In 1896 the present policy of the Indian Department 
and the recommendation of Mr. Jones w^as to put the Indian upon his 
feet and let him walk alone. But he is talking of the blanket Indians, 
and I am talking- of the 70,000 white men wdio are just as able to con- 
duct their business as you or J. and w^hat is a great deal more to the 
point, the}^ are anxious to do it; and they are being held down and 
being held from doing it. The}' are the men who object. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Will you permit another question? 

Mr. Howe. Certainly. 

Mr. McGuiRE. You say a comparatively large percentage of the 
people there are white, and are as able as any person to conduct their 
business. 

Mr. Howe. Yes. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Proceeding on that theory, is it not a fact that the 
land in Indian Territory is continuall}" enhancing in value, and that 
if those men are good business men, as you say the}' are, even though 
they are permitted by the United States Government to sell that land, 
as long as it is enhancing in value and they do not have to pay taxes, 
is it not your judgment that the}' are not going to dispose of it? 

Mr. Howe. That is possibly true; but if that is true, and if the land 
is enhancing in value, they ought to pay their proportion of the cost 
of maintaining the government in which they participate. 

Mr. McGuiRE. There is a treaty by which they are not to pay taxes. 

Mr. Howe. There is no such word in the treaty as that they are 
not to pay taxes. It is only an abridgement upon the sale of land 
until a certain time. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Do you know of a single instance where Indians 
have been allotted land in Oklahoma or in Indian Territory where the 
Indian is paying taxes upon real estate? 

Mr. Howe. Certainly not, where the allotments have not been 
transferred. And I know another thing. In Oklahoma you have the 
following situation: You have allotted to the Cheyenne and Arapahoe 
Indians not taxed 529,682 acres — to 3,294 Indians, three-fourths of 
whom are ''blankets." 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is true. 



108 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Howe. You have allotted to the Iowa and Tonkawa Indians 
8,685 acres to 109 Indians; to the Kickapoo, 22,529 acres to 283 
Indians; to the Kiowa and Comanche, 113,338 acres to 2,759 Indians; 
reserved for agency and school purposes, 11,972 acres; pasture 
reservation, not taxed, 180,000 acres; Taikawa, 11,273 acres to 73 
Indians; Osage Reservation, 1,170,000 acres not allotted and still in 
reservation; on the Oto Reservation, 63,119 acres not subject to tax- 
ation; Pawnee, 1L2,859 with the school lands, 810 acres; Ponca Reser- 
vation, 26,328 acres; Potawatomi allotments, 215,679 acres to 1,189 
Indians; Absentee Shawnee, 70,791 acres to 563 Indians; reserved 
for Government purposes, 510 acres; Sac and Fox, 87,683 to 518 
Indians, with school lands, 800 acres; and, finally, the Wichita, 
152,991 acres to 965 Indians. 

You have allotted to Indians in Oklahoma, not subject to taxation, 
upon which trust patents have been issued, 3,932,379 acres, and 3^ou 
have an Indian population who have taken allotments of 13,202 Indians, 
and out of that there are, as a safe estimate, 8,000 blanket Indians. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Then, as far as the real estate is concerned, under 
the tax burden 3^ou are now carrying in Oklahoma you would sell out 
the entire Indian Territory to Oklahama? 

Mr. Howe. On the contrary, I would add that Territory, and with 
it the provision, just as in Oklahoma to-da}^, as to taxation. When 
the Indian reservation was opened Oklahoma allotments were taken 
under a general allotment — from one of the reservations — particularly 
among the Shawnees. One took only 80 acres of the land. But those 
allotments were made and the surplus thrown open. It is the surplus 
that is paying the taxes in Oklahoma. They were Indian lands, and 
they are lands upon which crops have been raised. 

Here would be a like condition in the Indian Territory. The Choc- 
taw and Chickasaw surplus is to be sold. That is understood. And 
the valuable coal deposits of 111,000 acres to be sold under the exist- 
ing law. That is worth, at the smallest sum that has been mentioned 
as its possible purchase price, $25,000,000. There are 600,000 acres 
of pine land in the Choctaw Nation which the Dawes Commission asks 
permission to sell in its last report. ; 

Mr. McGuiRE. Pardon me. 

Mr. Howe. Certainly. 

Mr. McGuiRE. That 125,000,000 of which you speak as being the 
value of the coal lands in the Indian Territory would go to the Indians. 

Mr. Howe. The money would go to them, but the coal would go 
out under the holder's name, upon which taxes would be paid. 

Mr. McGuiRE. But that money would go to the Indians? 

Mr. Howe. Yes; under a per capita distribution. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Is there a single coal mine at this time in the Indian 
Territory that is pa3dng taxes upon coal lands and coal mines ? 

Mr. Howe. At the present time, no. But the time at which the}^ 
must pay taxes, if the law is carried out, will be March 25; and 
there is no possibility of an extension beyond six months. No mines 
in the Indian Territory are taxed, and the coal companies are only 
paying 8 cents a ton royalty. 

Mr. McGuiRE. There is another thing. Is it not a fact that a 
number of those coal men have thirty-year contracts with the Indians? 

Mr. Howe. It is a fact that all of the coal mines that are being 
worked in the Indian Territory constitute but a small portion of the 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 109 

land. Oat of the 4^1:4,000 acres there is but 22,000 that is under lease 
at all, and a very small portion of that is being worked. They have 
a thirty-3^ear contract, and it is to be sold subject to leases. 

Mr. McGuiRE. The leases would exempt them from taxation. 

Mr. Howe. On the contrar}^ the moment the title passes to an 
American citizen the}^ pav taxes. 

Mr. McGuiRE. In effect that would annul the lease, and to that 
extent you would impose a hardship. 

Mr. Howe. The owner must pay the taxes. The owner pa^^s it, 
and not the lessee. 

Mr. McGuiRE. But 3'ou impose upon him a hardship which did not 
exist and which he could not foresee at the time he took the thirty- 
3^ear lease. 

Mr. Howe. The owner pa3^s the taxes and not the lessee. 

Mr. Robinson. Are those coal companies combining to rob the 
people ? 

Mr. Howe. I am informed that it costs those mining companies 
about $1.25 per ton, including the labor to mine that coal, the rent, 
and the royalt3% which is onl3^ 8 cents per ton. I am further informed 
that the coal can not be obtained at the mine for less than |1 a ton. 
If that is true the3^ are asking for an enormous profit, and the people 
of that country are paying it. 

Mr. Powers. If there are so many coal mines wh3" do not the peo- 
ple develop them ? 

Mr. Howe. The Secretar3^ will not lease them on account of that 
treaty. As soon as the sale takes place that could be done. 

Mr. Sterling. Has the Government made geological surve3^s of this 
coal land? 

Mr. Howe. It is selected by gentlemen from the Geological Surve3^ 
who went out and segregated the 114,000 acres in six months. 

Mr. LiLLEY. How man3^ acres of coal land are leased, approximately ? 

Mr. Howe. About 20,000 acres. 

Mr. LiLLEY. How much has been worked? 

Mr. Howe. Probabl3^ half that amount is being actualh^ well worked, 
the balance worked a little, and I think one shaft would cover the entire 
lease. 

Mr. LiLLEY. Your answer would indicate that 11,000 acres that are 
leased are not worked, notwithstanding the exorbitant price. 

Mr. Howe. When I sa3^ the3' are not worked, I mean the3^ are not 
worked to any extent. 

Mr. LiLLEY. Can the3^ not be worked at all at that price, |1 per ton ? 

Mr. Howe. Certainl3^ 

Mr. LiLLEY. I should think the lessees would work them. 

Mr. Howe. Probably there is a combination of the lessees; I don't 
know. 

Mr. Robinson. I was anxious to have a statement from Mr. Howe 
upon this subject, but he has been limited as to time, and I can not 
ask 

Mr. Lloyd. He is not limited. 

Mr. Robinson. He ma3^ have had more important matters to occup3" 
him, but it struck us all the other da3^ I am sure, as it did me, that we 
ought to have some explanation of that condition of the coal matter 
down there as to combinations. If he has an3^ information as to that 
I was very anxious to draw it out. 



110 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Howe. If there is any information desired as to a list of the 
mines and the exact acreage, I can hand it in and it can be included, 
as I have not the exact acreage here. I am sorry to sa}^ I neglected 
that point. 

The point of the matter is simpl}^ this: The Secretary of the Interior, 
as he has in all other matters in governing4he Indian Territory, has 
done so entirely honestly, but at long range, 1,500 miles away. There 
is a mineral inspector there who fills one of the offices of public trust 
and profit, and it has been a very satisfactory office, I think, as a rule, 
and most of them — at least one or two of them — have been very able 
men. There is, under the Secretary of the Interior, an inspector for 
the Indian Territory who is his personal representative. 

Mr. LiLLEY. Do you mean the office is satisfactory to the incumbent 
or to the people? 

Mr. Howe. I think to the incumbent. 

Mr. LiLLEY. Is it satisfactory to the people ? 

Mr. PIowE. I think so, as far as they are concerned. At least they 
have made no special complaint in regard to it. 

The reports of the inspector, J. George Wright, who is the per- 
sonal representative of the Secretary in the Territor^^, come here, and 
he makes the rulings, and he either approves or disapproves the lease, 
which is entirely within the exercise of his discretionary authority. 
It may be approved or disapproved for any special cause. He has the 
practical direction and operation of all of the coal interests in the 
Indian Territory. He fixed the tariff or the royalty to be paid. He 
may fix it as high as 15 cents a ton or as low as 1 cent. 

It is fixed at the present time at 8 cents royalty. These coal mines 
are at the present time crossed by the Missouri, Kansas and Texas 
road at McAllister, and the regular eastern system from there on the 
Choctaw, Oklahoma and Gulf at McAllister, Haileyville, and Harts- 
horne, and branches which run out to Krebs, Carbon, and the coal 
towns in that district. 

Mr. LiLLEY. May I ask you if you have information or data as to 
what this coal actually costs the lessee delivered on board the cars to 
the railroad company? 

Mr. Howe. I can only give you the statement of one of the oldest 
miners there. 

Mr. LiLLEY. He might be prejudiced so that it would not be 
statement of fact. 

Mr. Howe. It would be against his interest to make it low, as he is 
a mine owner. I heard him state, in reference to bidding upon some 
of this land, and as to the percentage of profits with reference to it, 
etc., that this coal could be mined and put aboard the cars for $1.25. 

Mr. LiLLEY. Was he a promoter? Do 3^ou think he wanted to pro- 
mote a company? 

Mr. Howe. Instead of promoting he is one of the largest owners in 
that country, and he was talking about getting an actual title to land 
which he was then operating. 

Mr. LiLLEY. If he wanted to get the actual title, and was getting 
$4 for his coal, and stated that it only cost him $1.25, he didn't want 
to get it ver}^ cheap. 

Mr. Howe. Let me sa}^ in regard to that, that I have not mentioned 
the name of the party. At the time the statement was made he was not 
expecting that he would be called upon at any time to make a state- 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. Ill 

ment in regard to the cost of mining. I wrote him a letter and told 
him that I would like to make that statement. 

Mr. Doyle. 1 may state that the cost we approximate for putting 
it into the car is $1.25, and the vein is thinner, too. I am personally 
interested in mines in Kansas and Kentucky. 

Mr. Lillet. Would 3^ou allow a mine that you are personally 
interested in to put coal on board the cars at |2.25'^ 

Mr. Doyle. 11.25 for all the expenses and placing it on the car, 
where we have veins that are less than one-half as thick as they are in 
the Indian Territory veins. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Pardon this statement. 1 was talking to Mr. Busby 
yesterday. He is one of the large coal operators in Indian Territory. 

Mr. Doyle. He is one of the largest operators there. 

Mr. McGuiRE. There you and I agree. He made this statement in 
answer to interrogatories of mine in relation to why they were paying 
such enormous prices over in Indian Territory for coal. He said it 
was because he paid from 80 cents to |il and even more to mine the 
coal in Indian Territory than it costs to mine the coal in southeastern 
Kansas, not far from this place. I asked him why, and he said it was 
on account of the damp explosions — the damp conditions. That was 
simply his statement of the reason why. I know nothing about it any 
further than that I asked him as to it. I further asked him if there 
were any combinations down there, and he said there are not; that 
there are about 20 coal companies producing coal, and that there was 
no combination that he knew anything about. 

Mr. LiLLEY. Mr. Howe, do I understand you to make a positive 
assertion that there is a combination in the coal business there? 

Mr. Howe. On the contrary, I have never made that assertion 
positively. 

Mr. LiLLEY. Is there any gentleman here from the Indian Territory 
or Oklahoma who does? 

Mr. Doyle. The press reports are to the effect that a combination 
of lessees was made as to fixing the price at which it should be sold 
to the purchaser on the car at the mines. 

Mr. Havens. I can state that I know such a combination does exist, 
for I have seen correspondence from people who would make application 
to purchase coal there from one of the companies, and they would send 
the communication back and refer him to this central combination, 
which contracts with the companies for the entire output. They will 
not sell you a pound of coal. You can not buy it of them. Of course 
there are companies who own mines, and perhaps are composed of 
different individuals; but as an independent organization there exists 
a combination which controls the output of all those mines, and to which 
you must go for your prices. They control the price of the entire 
output of all the mines, and there is no competition whatever. We 
are paying throughout the Territory of Oklahoma to-da^^ %8 a ton for 
coal that costs them but $1.25 to put on the car. 

Mr. Powers. Do I understand you can not get prices from any of 
the companies there except from one man? 

Mr. Havens. There is one management. One man fixes the price 
of coal for every coal company in that country that can get a pound 
of coal carried on the railroad lines. 

Mr. Powers. I should think there would be a chance for interfer- 
ence of the United States authoi'ities there. 



112 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Havens. There will be almost twenty millions of people who 
will be dependent upon the coal mines of the Indian Territory. I 
have seen it estimated at that — the whole surrounding country of all 
those States of the West. 

Mr. Lloyd. They all have coal mines. 

Mr. Lillet. Colorado has mines. 

Mr. Lloyd. Kansas has. 

Mr. Havens. No; Kansas has not. The Kansas coal mines will not 
last ten j^ears. That is the estimate of those who are most familiar 
with the condition of the coal mines in Kansas. They say that at the 
end of ten years more there will be no coal in Kansas. 

Mr. Lloyd. I thought you meant there was none to-day. 

Mr. Henshaw. Suppose this land is not opened up to the public, 
but is kept just as it is, what will be the result? 

Mr. Havens. Suppose it were so. Those companies would bu}^ 
most of it, and if they didn't buy it they would keep it for some time, 
combining together and controlling the prices. There is but one rem- 
edy. That is for Congress to stop selling the lands, and to have leas- 
ing conditions, and lease it upon the condition that every lessee who 
enters into these combinations, or contracts to sell the output of that 
mine to a combination, should thereby forfeit his lease: and in that 
way you can break the combination that will control these mines. 

Let me call attention to another thing. The coal mines in the Indian 
Territory are the most extensive and the most valuable in the United 
States outside of Pennsylvania, and what is more, more people will be 
dependent in the long future upon the coal product of the Indian Ter- 
ritory than upon any other section except Pennsylvania. As I stated 
a moment ago, it will embrace twenty millions of people, reaching up 
through Kansas and Missouri. Missouri has no coal mines that amount 
to anything; neither has Arkansas or Texas or Oklahoma, and all these 
States are dependent upon the coal mines of the Indian Territory that 
are now controlled by the monopoly I speak of, and which, under exist- 
ing conditions, are very liable to be so controlled in the future. 

Mr. Howe. I do not want to keep the committee, but I want to give 
you these figures. Taking these figures as I have given them to you, 
if the surplus lands — and I am not speaking of homestead — are made 
subject to taxation, on March 4, 1906, there will be subject to taxation 
in the Indian Territory, and including these valuable coal deposits and 
pine lands, 12,502,865 acres. I will give the figures to the stenographer. 

The figures above referred to are as follows: 

Acres. 

Seminole 365, 851 

Quapaw 37, 602 

Seven-elevenths Cherokee (4,420,071) 2, 812, 796 

Three-fourths Creek (3,079,086 - 600,000) 1, 859, 313 

One-half Choctaw and Chickasaw (11,610,606 - 2,044,000) 4, 783, 303 

Choctaw and Chickasaw, surplus 1, 000, 000 

Coal 444, 000 

Pine 600,000 

Creek, surplus 600, 000 

Total 12, 502, 865 

Mr. Howe. The question was asked by the chairman as to the popu- 
lation of the Indian Territor}^ the number of Indians, the number of 
negroes, and the percentage of each. The estimates made b}^ the 
Dawes Commission, and they had a right to be most nearly accurate. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 113 

were 700,000 people. At first glance it would seem as though that 
were impossible, but when 3^ou figure down 3^ou will find it is not. In 
the town of Coalgate we had 800 people in 1900, and now we have 
7,000. The cit}^ of Ardmore, from 6,000 has gone up to 15,000 in the 
last four years; since the last census. There has been marvelous 
growth. Take the Red River division, running through Sapulpa, 
which had 1,500 and now has 5,000. Go down to the middle of the 
Creek Nation, to Okmulgee, and see the same marvelous growth; go 
down until }' ou get to Francis, which was only then opened, and Henri- 
etta, the coal town; go to Ada, with over 3,000, and Roff, with 2,000; 
then the town of Medill, where 4,000 people did not have houses at the 
last census. 

The Chairman. White people? 

Mr. Howe. White people from Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Kansas, Ne- 
braska, Missouri, who have gone there in good faith. And it will 
surprise you to know that those towns are onl}^ four years old. 

The Chairman. How do the people who go into these towns acquire 
title? 

Mr. Howe. Under the terms of the Curtis Act the towns are proven 
up, segregated, and sold, and they have just as good title as 3^ou would 
have to Washington City property, and they can go there and bu}^ 
and build. Those towns are built up with brick blocks, the same as 
Oklahoma. They have churches and schools. 

Mr. Powers. How do you get at the fact that Ardmore has 15,000 
inhabitants ? 

Mr. Howe. I take Mr. Henshaw's word, and I have been there and 
have talked with the people. I will tell you how they get at it. The}^ 
figure on the school population — they haven't any other things to 
figure on — and on the votes at the municipal election for raising taxes, 
and in that way, and in the assessments they have taken, and in voting 
for waterworks and school bonds, and those matters they have them- 
selves been able to take a census. 

Mr. PoAVERS. I spent only a few hours at Ardmore, but I happened 
to meet a man there from my own State, who had a very good team, 
and I rode over all of it and around it. 

Mr. Howe. This last fall ? 

Mr. Powers. Yes; and I should not think it had 15,000. I ma}^ be 
wrong about it. 

Mr. Howe. What would be your estimate? 

Mr. Powers. I should say 10,000 would be the outside figure. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Where do you get your figures that Sapulpa has 
5,000 people? 

Mr. Howe. I take that from the statement from a gentleman I saw 
on the train, so it may not be correct. My information with regard to 
Ada and Rofi' is personal. The others are given from information of 
other people. I am simply illustrating how much Sapulpa and these 
other towns have grown. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do a^ou not think the condition of the Indian Territory 
is a good deal like the condition of the States — that along about the 
actual time of taking the census there is a greater population among 
all of the towns than at an}^ other time ? 

Mr. Howe. I suppose so. 

Mr. Powers. Do vou not think, Mr. Llovd, that there are about 
10,000 at Ardmore? '^ 



114 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Lloyd. I think so. It is a wonderful growth. 

Mr. Howe. It is a wonderfal growth, anyhow. I have an extract 
from the report of the inspector, J. George Wright, under date of 
November 30, his last report, as to the number of towns in the Indian 
Territory, proven up and complete. I will sa}^ that there are, under 
those figures, 338 — that is, the title to which is acquired, all except 
about 20, where there are applications for alienation now pending. 

Mr. Lloyd. The 338 must have a population of at least 200 each? 

Mr. Howe. Yes; the least must have 200, and it includes these 
larger towns. The figures I refer to are given by nations. I do not 
want to take the time to read this extract, but will hand it to the 
stenographer and let him insert it. 

The extract referred to is as follows: 

By the report of J. George Wright, inspector for the Indian Territory, under date 
of November 30, the following is shown as to town sites in the Indian Territory: 

Creek Nation, complete 25 

Choctaw" Nation, com plete 89 

Not completed, upon which they are working 1 

Not yet commenced 12 

Chickasaw, complete 130 

Not working on 2 

Cherokee, complete 53 

Seminole, complete 1 

Alienation for town sites, entry granted, pending before Department, estimated. . 25 

Total 338 

Mr. Howe. I want to say that there is one strong argument, and I' 
wish to urge it as strongly as I, in my feeble way, can, for what I con- 
sider the necessities of the Indian Territor}^ 

Mr. Lloyd. In this connection, where do you reside, Mr. Howe? 

Mr. Howe. My famil}^ and myself have lived in this city since the 
year 1897, except a portion of the time, about a third of it, when I 
have been in Indian Territor}^ and in Oklahoma. I went into Okla- 
homa at the original opening of that Territory, and I was there all of 
the time until the time of my coming to Washington. Then I would 
be here and there, as my business demanded. M}^ interests are in 
Oklahoma and the Indian Territory. 

I have interests in both Territories. As an actual fact, if this were 
a State, and I could obtain a residence here, I presume my legal resi- 
dence would be in Washington in one way; but on the other hand I 
think a man never loses his residence, and m}^ interests are all there. 
It was there I was married, it was there my children were born, and 
it is there that I finally expect to rest. Oklahoma City is the town. 

The census returns of the Indian Territory show 36,000 Indians in 
the Territor}^, to which should be properly added 10,000 more f reed- 
men, included in the census as Indians. That makes about 16,000. I 
should have to dispute the census returns enough to say that I think 
there are 70,000 Indians, or people of Indian blood on the rolls. 

I think as a matter of fact there are about 7,000, or 1 per cent of the 
total, or 10 per cent of the Indian enrollment, that are full-blood 
Indians. I want the committee to bear in mind the character of that 
Indian population. It is entirely different from that in Oklahoma. 
They were blanket Indians, and were put there by Executive order. 
They are blanket Indians yet, except that they have had ten years' 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 115 

association with the whites and have had admirable educational oppor- 
tunities. 

Mr. HiNSHAW. Is there a single Indian child in Indian Territor}^ 
but what is educated and is being educated? 

Mr. Howe. Not one that I know of; and I can go still further, and 
say there is not in Oklahoma, either. The Indians are the only people 
w^ho have schools in the country in the Indian Territory. 

Mr. PoAVERS. I have heard it stated when I was in the Indian Terri- 
tory — ] have been there four times — that the Indians were the ones 
that had the schools. 

Mr. Howe. They still are. 

Mr. Powers. I was there four times, and went all through there. 
They had schools and tribal governments, and I thought they were 
about the best off and the best-to-do people there. Some of the 
Indians were really wealthy and had as good homes as I found 
anywhere. 

Mr. Howe. Twenty-five years later the}^ are still better. 

Mr. Powers. And when I heard there were so many white school 
privileges, I thought it must have changed from what it was when 1 
was there. 

Mr. How^E. I will state that the white man's child can not go to the 
Indian schools. 

Mr. Powers. Still they had white schools at Ardmore. 

A Member. The Indian children are well educated? 

Mr. PIowE. Yes. 

A Member. In the towns they are educated ? 

Mr. Howe. They are well educated now. 

A Member. But outside of the towns there are something like 
150,000, are there not? 

Mr. Howe. Right in this section there are no schools adjoining a 
town to which they can be sent in. They are nearly all tenants. They 
must be tenants. It is their children that are absolutely without 
school facilities, and they have no possible chance of obtaining them. 

Mr. Powers. Those people have gone in largel}^ since I was there, 
twent^^-five years ago. When I was there, every man who came there 
and married into an Indian tribe became an Indian and had all the 
rights of a member. 

Mr. Howe. That stopped in 1898. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish 
to detain you, but Mr. Doyle requested me to make a statement. 

The Chairman. We are very glad to have heard you. The com- 
mittee has enjoyed your statement. 

Mr. Howe. During the last visit I made, and I was only home three 
weeks. I was down there nearl}^ six weeks prior to that time. 1 
traveled quite extensively over Oklahoma. My business called me 
there. I talked with bankers, merchants, lawyers, and business men, 
who were m}^ friends and acquaintances. Nearly everyone of them 
spoke to me with regard to the proposition of statehood. They seemed 
to think that because I came from Washington I might be able to give 
them some special information, which was, of course, a mistake. 

I answered that and told them that I could not; that 1 knew nothing 
about it. This is the sentiment I found: They want immediate state- 
hood. One of the parties in its last platform declared for "immedi- 
ate " statehood. Part of the people want to wait for the Indian Ter- 
ritory. The other portion want statehood for Oklahoma, under the 



116 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

belief that they can get it '*immediateh%" their idea being, as near as 
I can judge, that they wish to participate in the next Presidential elec- 
tion; but I find on talking with those men and saying to them that it 
is an absolute impossibility to get immediate statehood, that it will 
take a couple of years, anyway, those men do not object to the Indian 
Territor}^ but want it. 

If you strike out the word "immediate" and leave it to the people, or 
tell them that they can not get statehood for two 3^ears, three-fourths of 
them, in my opinion — and I do not know but more of the people of 
Oklahoma— stand for statehood with the Indian Territory. The only 
objection to statehood with the Indian Territory that is urged is that it 
ma}^ dela}^ it. They are American citizens and bright men, and the}^ 
want the rights of full statehood. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Whereabouts were 3^ou during that talk in Okla- 
homa ? Were you at Oklahoma Cit}^ ? 

Mr. Howe. I was at Oklahoma City. 

Mr. McGuiEE. That is your home? 

Mr. Howe. And I was at Lawton; I was at W^eatherford; I was up 
the Santa Fe, and I went as far as Arkansas City; I was over at 
Shawnee and down to Tecumseh. 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is the southeast part of Oklahoma? 

Mr. Howe. W^hy, Lawton is not in the southeast part; it is south- 
west. Over here, and down here, and down here [indicating on map]. 

Mr. McGuiRE. You did not find much single statehood sentiment 
over there, did you? 

Mr. Howe. Some. 

Mr. Lloyd. W^hat was the sentiment at Lawton ? 

Mr. Howe. I was talking with several law3^ers there. They were 
for immediate statehood for Oklahoma, upon the theor}^ that the}^ 
could get it at the time, and that if they took in the Indian Territory 
they would have to wait. They did not want the delay. That is the 
sentiment of most of the men with whom I talked. 

Mr. McGuiRE. You did not find anybody at Elreno in favor of 
single statehood, did you? 

Mr. Howe. I can not answer as to Elreno, for this reason: I onh^ 
stopped there over one night, to see a man, and I didn't go around to 
see hardl}^ an}' of those boys. I did sta}^ at Lawton a couple of da^^s 
and over at Weatherford during one day, where I had a chance to 
talk of it; but I didn't have an opportuniW to speak of the matter in 
Elreno. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Pardon me; but for the benefit of the committee will 
3'ou indicate on the map where Elreno is with reference to Oklahoma 
City? At Oklahoma City it is all one way. 

Mr. Howe. That is admitted, I think. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Now, show where Elreno is. There it is all the 
other way. 

Mr. Howe. Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma County, at the point 
where my pencil is, on the North Canadian River, and distant from 
the east line of Oklahoma about 50 miles; and Elreno is about 30 
miles west from that point and is the county seat of Canadian County. 

Mr. McGuiRE. The sentiment changes when you get that distance 
almost entirety; and it is the sanie way north of Oklahoma City. 
Oklahoma City is for single statehood. Go north to Guthrie and the 
sentiment is all the other way, and it continues so. Oklahoma City is 



I 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 117 

for single statehood. Go to Elreno and the sentiment is all the 
other way, and continues so. 

Mr. Henshaw. The capital question enters into it? 

Mr. McGuiRE. It does with Oklahoma City and Guthrie. 

Mr. Henshaw. And El Reno ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No; El Reno never talks capital. I never heard a 
word of capital in my life in that county, in the city of El Reno. 

Mr. How^E. As a supplement to these remarks, Oklahoma City is 
the largest city in the Territory, and is the largest commercially as 
well as in population, while Shawnee now claims ltl:,000 people and is 
the third city in size in the Territory. 

Mr. LiLLEY. Which is the second in size? 

Mr. Howe. Guthrie. 

Mr. McGuiRE. It is the second in size. 

Mr. Howe. And Shawnee third. 

Mr. McGuiKE. Shawnee and Enid are about the same, I judge. 

Mr. Robinson. I have prepared a series of questions that I would 
have liked to have propounded, but it is evident that I can not very 
well do it. If I can have unanimous consent I will leave them with 
Mr. Howe, and will ask him to answer them if he can throw any light 
on the matter. 

The Chairman. If there is no objection Mr. Robinson will submit 
the questions to Mr. Howe, and the questions and answers ma}^ be 
incorporated in the report. 

Mr. Robinson. His answers ma}^ be made and inserted by him in 
the revision of his remarks, if he desires to do so, in so far as he has 
not covered them in the general discussion. 

The Chairman. Without objection Mr. Howe may take his own 
course in answering the questions propounded by Mr. Robinson. 

(The questions and answers above referred to are as follows:) 

Q. Under existing treaties how much of the Indian Territory will 
be subject to taxation after March -1, 1906? — A. All of the Seminole 
country; 1:1:1,000 acres of coal lands in the Choctaw country; 1,000,000 
acres of excess lands in the Choctaw-Chickasaw country; all of the 
Creek lands, which will be by that time sold, amounting to at least 
two-thirds of the salable lands; 600,000 acres of excess Creek lands; 
practically all of the Quapaw Reservation, amounting to about 37,000 
acres; all of the town sites numbering 338 separate towns; the various 
railroad rights of way of the land included therein. 

Q. How much will be subject to taxation under the terms of the 
Robinson bill after that time? — A. If there is added to this bill section 
15 of the Qua}^ bill, either as it is now written or in a modified form, 
after the lands are sold by the Indians a total of over 12,000,000 acres. 

Q. What is the power of the tribal governments under existing 
treaties? — A. The power of the tribal governments is limited at pres- 
ent to an election of officers and to proceedings relative to management 
of the estates belonging to the nation and the funds subject to the 
approval by the President of every act passed by them. If the Depart- 
ment of the Interior recommends the approval of an act it is gener- 
ally approved. If it recommends adverse!}^, it usually receives the 
disapproval of the President, and in this wa}^ they still retain the 
power to modify existing agreements. The}^ are continued in ofiice and 
continued as governments for the purpose of aiding in the distribu- 
tion of tribal lands and funds among the members of the nation. 



118 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Q. How are the funds raised to support the tribal governments? — 
A. In the past that fund has been raised by taxation levied principally 
on the white people in the Indian Territory. A white man in order 
to work a tract of land had to have a permit for which he paid the 
Indian. A merchant w as taxed 1 per cent of his gross total purchases 
and could be compelled to show his bills and invoices, so that after the 
town sites were proven up, a man who was doing business on his own 
propert}^, in his own house, was called upon to pay to the tribal gov- 
ernment 1 per cent of his total business for a year. 

If he did not pay it, he was taken and forcibly ejected from the 
country with the consent and assistance of United States authorities. 
If he returned to the countr}^, he was guilty of a misdemeanor. This 
was done without trial b}" an}^ court. The refusal to pay the tax was 
the only necessar}^ prerequisite. A case was taken before Judge 
Cla3"ton, who held that after the town sites were deeded the purchaser 
had a right to pursue a lawful calling upon his own land; that the 
nation had no interest in this propert}^; that it had passed from them, 
and that the United States authorities could not take him from his 
own home or imprison him for returning to it. But I am informed 
that the Department of the Interior have insisted upon an appeal from 
this decision and are still contesting for the tax. In addition to this, 
occupations are taxed. A law}' er who is an officer of the court must 
pa}^ $25 per year for the privilege of practicing before that court in 
that country, all those occupations the same, in the Cherokee Nation. 
There is a tax of 20 cents on all hay shipped from this nation to any 
point in the United States. This is collected by the inspector in 
charge, and if an attempt is made to ship hay upon which the tax has 
not been paid the ha}^ is confiscated. None of this tax or the funds 
derived therefrom go in any way to the benefit of the white people 
who pay them; nor are they levied against Indians engaged in the 
same business. 

Q. Who executes the law with relation to the collection of taxes in 
the Indian Territor}^ at the present time, and how ?— A. The officers 
of the United States under the direction of the Department of the 
Interior, through the Indian agent and the inspector in charge in the 
Indian Territor}^ 

Q. Do the white people of the Indian Territory pay any taxes to the 
tribal government; and if so, what for and why? — A. I have answered 
this question above. 

Q. What is the title to town propert}^ in the Indian Territory, and 
how is it subject to taxation? — A. Under the terms of the Curtis act 
and several amendments wdiich have been made with relation thereto 
in the agreements and in the appropriation bills passed. The towns 
which were in existence were surveyed and lots set aside, and parties 
who occupied them were permitted to purchase the same where they 
had improvements thereon, in most cases at one- half their appraised 
value. Those lands included in the town site which were not improved, 
either have been or will be sold to the highest bidder. Payments are 
made to the Indian agent, the funds deposited to the credit of the tribe 
or nation within whose boundary the town is situated. 

Where new towns have been built the Dawes Commission have been 
authorized, upon a showing, to set aside a proper amount of land for 
town purposes wherever the same did not conflict with prior rights of 
an allottee, and b}- a more recent act, where it became necessarj^ upon 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 119 

proper showing-, an allottee who happened to have lands where they 
were needed for towns has been permitted to make an application to 
the Secretary to be allowed to alienate part or all of his land for town- 
site purposes, and these applications are the ones referred to as now^ 
pending. There are several towns with at least 2,000 people in them 
which are located upon such lands. The title in this particular class 
of cases comes from the Indian allottee instead of from the nation. 

Q. Are there any blanket Indians in the Indian Territory; and if so, 
how many ? — A. Not a blanket Indian that 1 know of or ever saw. I 
mean b}^ this the Indian who did not wear the .clothing of a white man 
or who lives in a tepee and does not follow the general habits of civil- 
ized life. I said before that there were two bands of nonprogressive 
Indians in that Territory, but they do not correspond in any degree 
with the blanket Indians in Oklahoma. 

Q. What proportion of the Indians in the Indian Territory are of 
the full blood? — A. No man can answer this question except from his 
judgment. It is m}^ honest belief aborit one-tenth of the total Indian 
population, or about 7,000, in the Territor}'. 

Q. By what title do the coal companies in the Indian Territory hold 
their lands and what is the area of the coal deposits ? — A. They have 
no title except a lease made under existing \aw by the Secretary of the 
Interior. When these lands are sold they will be sold subject to the 
lease. The purchaser will take the title which the nation now holds 
and receive the royalties which it is entitled to receive. It is assumed 
that the coal companies w^ill individualh^ buy their own leases or the 
lands covered by their leases. 

The area of a coal deposit is unknown. Since the segregation of 
444,000 acres coal has been found in paying quantities in the Creek 
countr}^ and in the Cherokee country the deposit is very large and is 
being worked at a number of points not inchided in the segregated 
lands. 

Q. What are the mineral laws of the Indian Territor}^ ? — A. Strictly 
speaking, there are no mining laws in the Territory" — that is, no mining 
laws which would apply to the public lands of the United States, with 
the exception of the segregated coal and asphalt lands — the allottee 
takes a title to his land and to the minerals. If he is so located that 
he can sell he can transfer that title. If he can not do so there is no 
method provided under which it can be secured. There is a method, 
cumbersome and unsatisfactory, b}^ which an allottee can lease oil land 
in the Cherokee Nation, but before he can comply with the require- 
ments and get a lease approved the allotment must have been made 
and the matters must have gone to and through the Department of the 
Interior, taking it in man}^ cases many months. 

Q. What is the condition in the Indian Territory with relation to 
schools i — A. The condition of the Indian Territory with regard to 
schools is without a parallel in the United States. The Indians have 
ordinary school facilities, or at least such as are satisfactory^ to them, 
and every Indian child can, if he or she or the parent desires, secure a 
common school education. The records of the superintendent of edu- 
cation indicate that these schools are not satisfactory, but they are 
much better than none. The white children, however, who live in 
the countr}^ are without any school facilities whatever and without 
opportunity to obtain them. I know of no greater menace to the 
future of this nation than this condition of affairs in the Indian Terri- 



120 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

tory. The number of school children has been estimated at 185,000 — 
1 mean the number without any chance of obtaining a common school 
education. To permit this condition to exist one day longer than is 
absolutely necessary is, in my opinion, a neglect of duty which should 
appeal to every man in this country. 

Q. How are the insane or poor cared for ? — A. There is no law pro- 
vided for the care of the unfortunates of the Indian Territory. It is 
said — and I think the records will bear me out — that where people 
were found to be insane in some cases a criminal charge has been 
brought against them so based upon the necessities of the situation, 
and a verdict taken under which they have, in a number of instances, 
been brought to St. Elizabeth's Asylum, in Washington, as United 
States prisoners who were found to be insane. It is also charged that 
where a friend or relative could be found in an 3^ of the adjoining States 
or in the Territory of Oklahoma the towns have contributed the nec- 
essary mone}^ for the poor, and the indigent have been sent to these 
places, where they were kept for a time and finally sent to the institu- 
tions provided for them in the State; in other w^ords, dumped out 
upon the surrounding country. When it occurs out in the country 
there is no remedy as matters stand at present. The towns, being 
incorporated, endeavor to assist those who are within their limits, and 
the burden is a heavy one. The merc}^ of both God and man seems to 
have forsaken or -forgotten the unfortunate people in the Indian 
Territory. 

Q. Where is a man prosecuted for a petty ofiense ? — A. I think this 
question has been fully answered. Before the United States commis- 
sioner and the Federal courts. 

Q. W hat authority does the Indian agent exercise, and what relation 
does it bear to that of the inspector? What relation do these men 
bear to the courts? What authority has the Dawes Commission and 
what relation does it bear to the other authorized agents or officers in 
that country ? What provision is there made for either the acquirement 
or protection of property outside the town limits? — A. I can answer 
these questions better taking the four together: The United States 
Indian agent at the Union Agency exercises all of the authority of an 
Indian agent under the general law. He also has special authority con- 
ferred upon him to receive the moneys and issue the deeds for town 
property and through the Indian police to eject people who he decides 
are wrongfully holding possession of an Indian allotment of Indian land. 
In the exercise of this last authority he is sole judge. A provision 
of the Indian bill provides that he shall not be subjected to injunction 
or the process of courts. The inspector also has an office at Muscogee. 
He is generally considered as the personal representative of the Secre- 
tary of the Interior in the Indian Territory. To him all applications for 
leases, etc., under the law are made; he has supervisory authority over 
practically everything in th,e Indian Territory, except the enrollments 
and allotments, which are in the hands of the Dawes Commission. The 
Dawes Commission is charged with the duties of preparing the rolls 
of parties who are members, or, as they are termed, (citizens of the 
nations and of the allotment of lands thereunder. All of this complex 
machinery is under the direction of the Secretar}^ of the Interior. 

The Dawes Commission have denied his authorit}^ over them, but it 
has been exercised in face of that denial. The machinery is complex, 
and it has been in man}^ ways unsatisfactory; perhaps it is the best the 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 121 

Government could do, but at best it has been arbitrary and the limita- 
tions upon what could and could not be done has been so great that 
the advancement of the toAvns has been retarded, individual rights lim- 
ited and abridged, and an unsatisfactory condition of affairs, both to 
the Indian and to the white residents as existing now. These men 
bear no relation to the courts whatsoever, and under existing laws so 
much is left to the discretion of the Department that it is almost 
impossible to correct any errors in the courts, because they are not 
subject to mandamus or injunction, where they are exercising a dis- 
cretion conferred upon them either direct or implied. 

The people of the Indian Territory are now looking for relief 
through the action of this committee by the establishment of a stable 
government under which they will be permitted to provide suitable 
legislation applicable to the wants and necessities of that country. No 
country can be governed properly at long range from 1,500 miles dis- 
tance; and it is a further fact that every one of the real governing 
officers are men who are appointed from other States and prior to their 
appointment knew nothing of these people or their necessities. It is 
to be presumed that when their term of office expired they would 
return to their homes. In support of this I direct your attention to 
the fact that the Dawes Commission is composed of men from other 
States; the Indian agent the same, the inspector the same; also the 
judges the same; a portion of the ma.rshals were residents of the 
Indian Territory, but the only business they have is service of 
process. The petty Indian officials have no legislative power. The 
people are not even permitted to have a Delegate to speak for them 
either before the committees or on the floor of the House. The stor}^ 
of their wrongs is forgotten, while voluminous reports from the various 
officials, showing to them what the}^ have or are seeking to accom- 
plish, draw the attention of the most earnest members of the committee 
from the necessities of the Indians in that countr3^ 

Q. What provision is there made for either the acquirement or pro- 
tection of propert}' outside the town limits'^ — A. Absolutely none as 
to real estate. 

Q. What is the area of lands now on the tax rolls in the Territory 
of Oklahoma?— A. I am informed between 7,000,000 and 8,000,000 
acres. 

Q. What portion of Oklahoma is not subject to taxation by reason 
of being allotted to Indians or within an Indian reservation or other- 
wise reserved? — A. A little less than 1,000,000 acres. 

Q. What portion of Oklahoma is unentered and now vacant public 
lands? — A. According to the last report the same are given as follows: 

Alva district 43, 916 

El Eeno 6, 818 

Kingfisher 126, 659 

Lawton 16, 681 

Mangnm 42, 000 

Woodward 114, 985 

Beaver 2, 738, 709 

3, 089, 768 
Saline Reservation 17, 263 

3,107,031 
Pasture reservation and the Indian reservations. 
Q. How much land is there now held under homestead entr}^ upon 



122 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

which final proof has not been made and which is not subject to taxa- 
tion and may not be subject for a period of five j^ears? — A. This can 
not now be estimated. There is considerable in all the districts of 
Oklahoma upon which proof has not been made. Practicall}^ aU of 
the lands opened in 1901 are in this condition — I should ss.j, at least, 
about 2,000,000 acres. 

Q. Is there within the limits of Oklahoma one developed coal mine 
or one coal company working any mine within this Territory ? — A. There 
is not to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. At this point, gentlemen, I wish to make a sug- 
gestion. This question of statehood is a ver}^ interesting question, 
and a great many of our friends come in to hear the discussion. They 
are all more or less interested. 1 have noticed that when some gentle- 
man has the floor there is a tendency, and it is very natural and verj^ 
proper, perhaps, to have interrogatories submitted by gentlemen who 
are not members of the committee. But the chairman desires to sug- 
gest that it makes it very difficult indeed for the reporter, who does 
not know the names of the gentlemen who are not members of the 
committee, and it introduces confusion in the remarks of the gentle 
man who has the floor. 

The Chair would therefore suggest that those gentlemen who are 
interested shall submit their interrogatories to members of the com- 
mittee and let the members of the committee propound them, so that 
we may preserve better order in the remarks of the gentleman who has 
the floor. It is only fair to the gentleman who may be speaking to 
the committee, I think, and if there is no objection from the commit- 
tee perhaps we had better make some such rule as that. 

Mr. Howe. I desire to thank the chairman and the members of the 
committee for their attention and to say that if there is any further 
light that I can throw upon this matter I shall be at your service at 
any time. When I speak in that wa3^I am conscious of the fact that 
I have been in that portion of the country more than some members 
of the committee, probably, and perhaps more than some of the mem- 
bers of the Oklahoma delegation who are here. 

It is true that the condition of these treaty tribes is rather a delicate 
and perplexing problem, and one that it is hard to grasp and under- 
stand at times without giving considerable attention to the subject, 
and I appear, at the request of Mr. Doyle, in order that I might per- 
haps explain a little that was dark to you. And am at the same time 
aware that it was a favor to myself and those for whom I speak. 

The Chairman. The committee has been interested and instructed 
by 3^our remarks, and is glad to have had you appear before it. 

Mr. Lloyd. I move that we do now adjourn until 10.30 to-morrow 
morning. 

The committee, at 5 o'clock p. m., adjourned until to-morrow, Feb- 
ruary 2, 1901, at 10.30 o'clock a. m. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 123 

Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives, 

Washington^ D, C. , February ^, 1901^. 

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward L. Hamil- 
ton in the chair. 

The Chairman. Colonel Havens, before jow proceed the chair desires 
to ask 3'ou to present to this committee, at some time daring 3^our 
remarks, in a concise form, all the arguments that present themselves 
to 3'our mind against the joinder of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory 
in a single State. There is another suggestion which was made last 
night, which some of the gentlemen here ma}^ not have heard, to the 
effect that questions to be propounded to gentlemen addressing the 
committee should be propounded by some member of the committee, 
because if they are propounded by gentlemen who are in attendance 
here, not members of the committee, the}^ confuse the reporter and 
lead to confusion in the argument of the gentleman who is addressing us. 

You may now proceed. 

STATEMENT OF A. G. HAVENS. 

Mr. Havens. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the 
material facts relating to the qualifications or fitness of Oklahoma for 
statehood 

Mr. Lloyd. May I suggest a fact, as to which 1 think we are all 
agreed, and that is that we are not especially concerned further about 
statistics. 

Mr. Havens. I was about to say that I should not touch upon that 
question. 

The Chairman. If an}- statistics are to be presented by vou, please 
present them in the most condensed form possible. 

Mr. Havens. I was about to sa}^ that these facts had been so fully 
presented, that is, the facts relating to the wealth, population, and 
general resources of the Territory, and are so well understood gener- 
ally that it would be an imposition upon the patience of this committee 
for me to rehearse them now. I desire, however, to refer to some of 
the incidental questions and considerations involved and to some of the 
statements made bv Mr. Do vie in his argument. 

Ten 3'ears ago, when Oklahoma had about the wealth and the popu- 
lation which Territories have usually had when admitted as States, 
she made application for admission as a State and was refused. 
During the succeeding ten years she has been continually coming here 
with her application for admission as a State, and has been steadily 
repulsed, until we have grown into proportions greater than about 
one-third of the States of the Union. At the last general election, in 
1902, we cast more votes in our Congressional election than were cast 
in 18 of the States of the Union. 

Mr. Lloyd. You mean in an}^ one of the 18 States? 

Mr. Havens. Yes; in an}^ one of 18 States, and 3'et w^e are on the 
outside. We are here appealing for that recognition to which we 
believe we are entitled. There must be some reason for this outside 
of the conditions that ordinarily prevail. There must be some reason 
wh}' Oklahoma has been refused admission to the Union until she has 
attained a population greater than many of the States of the Union 



124 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

and more than double what has been required of any other Territory 
that was ever admitted to the Union. 

What is that cause? When we have come here with our application 
for statehood we have constant!}^ been met from the Indian Territor}" 
with a proposition to attach that Territory to Oklahoma. Discussions 
which have followed have related mainl}^ to the conditions in the Indian 
Territory, and not to a fair and impartial consideration of Oklahoma's 
claims. The time of the committee has been occupied with the mate- 
rial considerations that have been presented, relating to complicated, 
mysterious, and uncertain conditions that prevail in the Indian Terri- 
tory, and the question of our admission has been embarrassed, hin- 
dered, and denied a free and impartial consideration because the Indian 
Territory has constantly presented itself with a claim to be attached 
to Oklahoma. 

. Our friends from the Indian Territory have insisted, through repre- 
sentatives here, upon being attached to Oklahoma, and have at last 
succeeded in bringing this question squarely before this committee. 
They seem to think that it is impossible for them to secure the legislation 
which they so sorely need unless they can hitch on to Oklahoma and 
be brought in upon the strength of her claims for admission as a State. 
And so heretofore, in half a dozen Congresses, as well as before this 
committee to-day, this question has been embarrassed and hindered b}^ 
these conditions in the Indian Territory. What has been the result? 
The result has been that the Indian Territory has failed to secure 
legislation which she ought to have had years ago and which she might 
have had if she had presented herself here without the complications 
and hindrances that have been brought about by reason of the entangle- 
ment with Oklahoma; and Oklahoma has been defeated in her aspira- 
tions for statehood because of those entanglements. 

If Oklahama and the Indian Territory had been situated 100 miles 
apart, so that their respective rights and claims would not have been 
entangled and complicated, Oklahoma would have been admitted as a 
State 3^ears ago, and the Indian Territory would have secured the 
legislation which it is discreditable to this Government and the country 
she has not secured long ago. The anomalous condition which exists 
there would have been provided for by Congress, except for the 
embarrassments that have been constantly presented here and which 
our friends from the Indian Territory have mistakenl}^ brought here 
in the belief that by hitching on to Oklahoma they can secure that 
legislation through her admission as a State into the Union. 

I do not criticise nor find fault with the representatives of the Indian 
Territor}^ for this condition. They are more sinned against than 
sinning. Some of the people of Oklahoma are chiefly responsible for 
the fact that the representatives of the Indian Territory have presented 
themselves here in this attitude. We have in Oklahoma two or three 
influences that have steadily opposed any immediate statehood for that 
Territory. Let us see what those influences are. The Federal office- 
holders of Oklahoma have steadily opposed an}" proposition that looked 
to immediate statehood for that Territory, apparently with the view 
that statehood would end their occupation as Federal officeholders. 
Their influence has steadily gone against every effort of people of that 
Territory to secure statehood. Not daring to oppose public sentiment 
and say they were opposed to statehood, they would say, " We are in 
favor of statehood: but we want to wait vuitil the Indian Territorv is 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 125 

ready. We want to be united with the Indian Territorj^" The\" 
whisper in the ears of the Indian Territor}^ people that they should 
not ask for Territorial government; that the}" should not undertake to 
secure legislation; but that they should make a common cause with 
Oklahoma for statehood; and in that way they have accomplished 
their purpose of delaying statehood and holding on to their Federal 
positions. 

This condition of affairs existed under the Administration of Presi- 
dent Cleveland, when ever}' Federal officer took that position. It 
existed under the Administration of Mr. McKinley and partially exists 
to-day, but not so fully as it did then. A portion of our Federal offi- 
cers are supporting and advocating the passage of the McGuire bill. 
Our governor, secretary, and United States attorney, and two or three 
of the Federal judges at this time are favorable to the passage of this 
bill. But prior to this Congress I know of no Federal officer who has 
not occupied the position I have stated. 

Then there is another influence. Every railroad corporation in the 
Territory of Oklahoma has occupied precisely the same position. All 
of the influence and power of those corporations have been brought 
to bear to defeat legislation upon the statehood question. And Avhy? 
The legislature of Oklahoma is a small body. The house of repre- 
sentatives is composed of 36 members and the council of 13 members — 
a body very easily handled. 

The railroad companies have never failed to get what they want. 
They are better satisfied that these things should remain as they are 
than to take the risk of conditions that v, ill follow when statehood 
comes, and when they fear that a railroad commission may interfere 
with their rates for traffic and regulate, to some extent, in the interest 
of the people, the affairs of the railroad companies. And so it is a fact 
that the attorneys and officers of every railroad corporation in that Ter- 
ritory have been steadily arrayed against any form of statehood for 
Oklahoma. They say: "Wait until the Indian Territory is ready; we 
are doing well enough.'' 

I understand, and have been informed since I have been here upon 
this trip, that one of the great railroads which has heretofore occupied 
that position is now favorable to the passage of the McGuire bill and 
that their attorney at Guthrie occupies that position. That is the 
Sante Fe Railroad Company. I know of no other railroad in the Ter- 
ritory to-day whose attorneys and officers are not working to defeat 
the passage of this bill and who are not encouraging the people of the 
Indian Territory to hold off' and wait until some uncertain time in the 
future when the two Territories may be united. 

Then there is another influence. We have the capital question out 
there — the question of the future location of the capital of the Terri- 
tory. The town of Shawnee, as you will notice, is situated only a few 
miles from the Indian Territory, while Oklahoma City is only about 
30 or 35 miles farther Avest. Each of these cities is ambitious to 
secure the location of the capital. They believe that their location in 
the southeastern portion of the Territory would give them but little 
chance of succeeding, unless they can sec are an alliance with the Indian 
Territory. Until two or three years ago the people of Oklahoma 
City were favorable to statehood for Oklahoma. It was then believed 
that there would be no trouble in moving the capital from Guthrie. 
There was but one railroad line running through Guthrie and that 



126 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

town was veiy inaccessible to the people of the Territory, but within 
the last two or three years Guthrie has secured nine lines of railroad, 
which run out in nine different directions, penetrating every part of 
the Territory and making it easily accessible to all the people. 

It is now apparent that, with the present boundaries of Oklahoma, 
the capital can never be moved from Guthrie, and the onl}^ hope 
Oklahoma Cit}^ and Shawnee have of securing the location of the capi- 
tal is in defeating statehood for Oklahoma. Within the last two or 
three years, to secure an alliance with the Indian Territory, they have 
shifted their position, and, having been advocates of statehood for 
Oklahoma, have suddenly become insistent upon combination with the 
Indian Territory. They have held what they call single statehood 
conventions at Shawnee and have invited the people of the Indian 
Territor}^ to participate with them. The}^ have secured their presence 
and have given them assurances and encouragement to believe that by 
holding out and seeking no independent legislation for themselves, by 
waiting until Oklahoma can pull them in, they will get into the Union 
as a State or as a part of a State. In fact, they have been assured 
that there was no question that if they waited until this Congress they 
would secure statehood. 

These influences, Mr. Chairman, have had the effect of defeating 
statehood in Oklahoma, and these are the influences that have operated 
against us. 

W hat is the sentiment of the people of that Territor}^ ? I make the 
statement that outside of the southeastern corner of the Territory, 
embracing three or four counties within the range of Oklahoma Cit}^ 
and Shawnee, there is practically no sentiment in that Territory favor- 
able to statehood with the Indian Territory. 

The Chairman. You mean there is no such sentiment in Oklahoma 
Territory ? 

Mr. Havens. I mean to say that there is no sentiment in Oklahoma 
Territory in favor of single statehood. 

Some gentleman, the other day — and I do not know whether he is pres- 
ent now or not — inquired of one of the speakers if there w^as not a square 
issue made in that Territory in the last election upon the statehood 
question, hj the platforms of the political parties. I undertake to say 
that prior to our campaign in 1902 no political party in Oklahoma 
ever adopted a platform favorable to single statehood. On the con- 
trar}^ the people, irrespective of party, have stood together in advo- 
cacy of statehood for Oklahoma. 

No political party until last year, 1902, ever made a declaration in a 
platform in favor of single statehood — neither party. But in that 
convention the candidate of the Democratic party who was nominated 
for Congress resided in Oklahoma Cit}^ and shared in that feeling with 
reference to the location of the capital. He was the nominee of that 
convention, and the delegation from that county succeeded in securing 
a declaration in the platform in favor of single statehood. That dec- 
laration was as much a surprise to the Democratic party of the Territory 
as it was to the Republicans, because prior to that time the Democracy 
of the Territory had occupied no such position, and the}^ do not occupy 
it to-day. They voted for Mr. Cross, who was the Democratic nomi- 
nee, notwithstanding this declaration of the' platform which they did 
not approve. Take the county in which I reside, one of the largest of 
the Territory, and take my cit}^, having a population of about 10,000; 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 127 

to-daj I know of but three men of either political party in that town 
who favor the idea of an alliance with the Indian Territory. I have 
resided there from the day the town started, and I know the people and 
the sentiment of the community, and, while there ma}^ be more, I know 
only of three men who are favorable to the proposition that is being 
made in favor of single statehood. 

Mr. Lloyd. May I ask you this question : Is the question of state- 
hood in an}^ sense a political question in Oklahoma? 

Mr. Havens. It never has been a political question in that Terri- 
tor3^ Our statehood conventions have all been called irrespective of 
part}", and have been composed of representatives of both parties. It 
never has been made a political issue, until Mr. Cross and the Okla- 
homa City people succeeded in getting that plank in the Democratic 
platform in 1902; and even the fact that the declaration was placed in 
the platform did not have the effect of switching the Democratic party 
to that position, and they are not there to-day, outside of the particular 
localities I have mentioned. 

Mr. Lloyd. May I inquire what your town is? 

Mr. Havens. Enid, Garfield County. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is not your town one of the applicants for the capital 
in the event of statehood '( 

Mr. Havens. No, sir. There was some talk among some of our 
people to that effect a 3"ear or two ago, but no one attaches any impor- 
tance to it. We have no chance of securing it, and are making no 
contest for it. That town has been, however, trying to secure the 
location of some one of the Territorial institutions. 

I want to refer to one other matter of history. In the legislature of 
1900 the people of the Territory, wearied with their continued failures 
to secure recognition from Congress, believed that if they adopted a 
constitution and presented it here without waiting for an enabling act 
from Congress, the question would be presented fairly and squarely 
as to w^h ether Oklahoma should be entitled to admission or not, and it 
w^as believed that she would thereby head off' the complicated ques- 
tions relating to an alliance with the Indian Territory and secure the 
judgment of Congress as to their claim upon its merits. 

In the legislature a bill was introduced providing for calling a con- 
stitutional convention, precisely as Kansas did. Kansas framed her 
constitution without waiting for an enabling act, and some other States 
have been admitted in a similar way. I had the honor of preparing 
that bill, being a member of the council. It passed the council and 
was sent to the house, where it also passed with some slight amend- 
ments, and came back to the council, which refused to concur in the 
house amendments. A conference committee was appointed, of which 
my friend Doyle and myself were both members. 

Mr. Lloyd. Then you did not agree? 

Mr. Havens. We agreed. That was exclusively an Oklahoma bill, 
and Mr. Doyle was at first urgently in favor of it. Then, as I sa}", the 
only complaint that Mr. Doyle made of that bill w^as that in preparing 
it I had given the Republicans a little too much advantage in the matter 
of electing delegates to the constitutional convention. He insisted on 
having such a modification as would give the Democrats a little better 
show. W^hen we got into the committee of conference we let Mr. 
Doyle have his way about it, and he went in and voted for the bill. 

While that bill was pending in the legislature a statehood conven- 



128 • STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

tion was called, irrespective of party and politics, and we all agreed 
about it. There were no differences of opinion except on the matter 
of representation, and we reconciled those differences. That conven- 
tion was one of the largest that ever assembled in the Territory. All 
parts of the Territory were represented, and it was composed about 
equally of Kepublicans and Democrats. The subject of politics was 
not considered. What the}^ wanted was statehood. That convention 
indorsed the statehood bill for Oklahoma with but one dissenting vote. 
There was but one voice in that convention against the passage of that 
statehood bill for Oklahoma. They declared in favor of statehood f oi 
Oklahoma without the Indian Territory and in favor of the passage 
of this bill. That was the state of public sentiment up to that time. 

Mr. Lloyd. W.hen do you say that was? 

Mr. Havens. That was in 1899. There had been no political divi- 
sions up to that time and no differences of opinion among the people 
generally, except those differences I have heretofore called 3^our atten- 
tion to, coming from the influences of Federal officeholders and rail- 
roads. At that time the capital question had not arisen. The 
representative of Oklahoma City, who is now chairman of this single- 
statehood committee, and who, it is announced, as I understand from 
the chairman, will be here to advocate single statehood before this 
committee, was a member of that legislature and was chairman of the 
committee that reported the Oklahoma statehood bill. 

Mr. Lloyd. Was that Mr. Ames? 

Mr. Havens. No; it was Mr. Jones. He was originally a supporter 
of it and was as enthusiastic about it and as earnest as I was m3^self. 
The constituency which he represented, embracing Oklahoma Cit}", 
occupied the same position, and he represented the sentiment of that 
entire community. It was not until the capital question assumed a 
new phase that Mr. Jones and others of Oklahoma City changed their 
attitude upon the statehood question, and in that cit}^ to-da}^ Republi- 
cans and Democrats alike are opposed to the McGuire bill and in favor 
of the attachment of the Indian Territory to Oklahoma. It is not a 
political question there. 

I want to refer to another fact as indicative of public sentiment in 
that Territory to-day. The advocates of single statehood called a con- 
vention to meet in June last at Shawnee, the purpose being to bring 
pressure to bear in favor of single statehood. They made frantic 
efforts to secure a large convention. The}^ sent letters all over the 
Territor}^, appealing particularly to the Democrats, whom they expected 
to be favorable, to send delegates to that convention. 

Letters were scattered as thick as leaves in autumn all over the 
Territory, begging those whom they hoped might be friendly to send 
delegates to that convention. What did they succeed in doing? They 
did not get, in the entire Territorj^, delegates from half a dozen 
counties. After the most frantic efforts the}^ did not succeed in get- 
ting a convention of delegates from more than three or four counties, 
and those were counties located in the corner of the Territor}^ to which 
I have called attention. The Democrats in Enid called themselves 
together to see what the}^ would do about it, and they deliberately 
voted that they had no sympathy with the purposes of that convention 
and refused to send delegates to it. That was true as to the entire 
western two-thirds of the Territory. 

I wish to call your attention to another aspect of the influences I 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 129 

have spoken of in that section embracing about two-thirds of the Ter- 
ritoiy which lies Avest of the Santa Fe Railroad. 

I lirst, however, want to call your attention to the methods the}^ 
resorted to to secure delegations for the Shawnee convention. At the 
cit}^ of Guthrie, where there were scarcely an}- single statehood people, 
a gentleman by the name of Niblack and another b}^ the name of Joe 
Wisbie assembled themselves together as collective agents of Oklahoma 
civilization, I suppose, selected a delegation, and announced to the 
press through the Territory, by telegraph, that a mass meeting con- 
vention of the people of Guthrie had appointed the following gentle- 
men as delegates to the Shawnee convention. Upon that delegation 
they placed the most prominent antisingle statehood citizens of the 
town, and upon them such men as Mr. Greer, Mr. McNeil, Governor 
Barnes, and other gentlemen of that sort, in order to create an impresion 
upon the outside that these gentlemen were favorable to the scheme. 
The}^ were advertised all over the country as having been appointed 
to this single statehood convention. They knew nothing of it, and no 
one did, outside of these two gentlemen, in a cit}^ of 20*, 000 people. 
It was not known that any such proceedings was going on. Those 
gentlemen, of course, did not recognize any such appointment, and, of 
course, did not attend the convention. 

Mr. Lloyd. Did they send proxies to the convention? 

Mr. Havens. I will tell you how they managed that. Take, for 
instance, Kingfisher County. Probably there is but one single state- 
hood man in it, and that man from Kingfisher County attended the 
convention. When he got over there they seated him as a delegate, 
and in the proceedings of the convention he was regarded as the repre- 
sentative of the people of Kingfisher Countv. He was there without 
credentials and without any constituency" behind him and without 
authority. The same thing was done as to several other counties. In 
that way they managed to get into the newspapers. The people of 
Oklahoma, outside of those two or three counties, had little more to 
do with that convention than the people of Washington City. 

Mr. Doyle read the other day from a memorial to the Oklahoma leg- 
islature of 1901, from which he undertook to make it appear that the 
sentiment of Oklahoma was against statehood for Oklahoma. The 
people of Oklahoma have become impatient and discouraged at the 
failure of their previous efforts, and have come to feel that they have 
got to surrender, or at least take anything that Congress will give them, 
and that if it is single statehood they will have to submit. This memo- 
rial, after reciting the conditions that exist there and the claims of the 
Territory to statehood, sa^^s: 

Believing that immediate relief should be had by them (the people) if, in your wis- 
dom, Oklahoma alone is not entitled to statehood, we urge immediate admission 
with the Indian Territory. 

This resolution assumes that the people want statehood for Okla- 
homa; but they say that if, in your wisdom, Oklahoma alone is not 
entitled to it, then give us something else. We want some kind of 
statehood. That was the sentiment and feeling when the memorial 
was adopted, and there was not a vote of the Oklahoma statehood 
people against it. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is that the sentiment to-day ? 

Mr. Havens. That is the sentiment to-da}^ to a ver}^ large extent. 

I want to call your attention to one or two statements made bv Mr. 

OKLA 9 



130 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Do3"le. He contended that it had been in view by the people of the 
Territory from the first that its destiny was with the Indian Territory, 
and that our legislation had been shaped accordingly. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I will point out on the map those locations as you go 
along. 

Mr. Havens. Do you know the original lines of the Territory ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes. 

Mr. Havens. He argued this from the location of the agricultural 
college and the universit}^ He argued that it was manifest that the 
legislation contemplated the future combination with the Indian Terri- 
tory. Mr. Doyle seems to have forgotten that at the time that was 
done Oklahoma consisted of but three full counties and a half of two 
or three others. 

I believe I can indicate on the map better than you can what consti- 
tuted Oklahoma at that time. This is all there was of the Territory. 
It included a portion of Pajaie County and a half of Kinghsher. Here 
was the line of the Territor}^ at that time. The rest of this portion 
was an unsettled Indian county and Logan County was not included 
in it. Pottawatomie Countj^ w^as not included. None of this sweep of 
country here and none of this strip over to the western boundary of 
the Territory was a part of the Territory at that time; that is, it was 
unorganized territory and not represented in the legislature. 

At the time the capital question was first agitated there was an 
intense conflict betw^een Guthrie, Oklahoma Cit}^, and Kingfisher for 
the location of the capital. It became so intense that corruption was 
charged and all sorts of irregularities were supposed to have existed 
in connection with the attempted legislation. Kingfisher, lying on 
the west boundar}^ of the Territor}^, w^as an applicant for the capital. 

The friends of one of the other towns offered to unite with them and 
give them the agricultural college, and finally offered to give them both 
the agricultural college and the university if the}^ would recognize 
their claim to the capital and unite on their town. Kingtisher refused 
to do it, and lost the capital and lost the agricultural college and the 
universit}^ Otherwise they would have been located on the other side 
of the Territory instead of where the}^ are. It was a result of a 
combination to locate the capital at Guthrie. That is what located 
these institutions. Statehood was not thought of at that time. It was 
only a few months after the organization of these three or four coun- 
ties as an organized part of the Territory. 

Now, gentlemen, there is contained in this bill a provision that in 
the future the Indian Territory may be attached to Oklahoma. In 
his remarks here yesterday, Mr. Doyle denounced that provision as 
an infamous proposition. What is it? That provision does not attach 
the Indian Territor}^ nor an}^ part of it to Oklahoma. It does not 
require it to be attached. It is simply a provision that if, in the future. 
Congress shall desire to attach it, Oklahoma will not stand in the way. 
It commits Oklahoma to a position where she can not object, if Con- 
gress should desire and the Indian Territory should desire to be 
attached, and that is all it provides. It does not make it obligatory 
upon anybody, upon the people of the Indian Territory, or upon Con- 
gress to attach it. 

Mr. Lloyd. That clause in the McGuire bill does not give the 
Indian Territory any say about it, does it? 

Mr. Havens. It just leaves it an open question with Congress and 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 131 

the Indian Territory. It puts Oklahoma in a position where she has 
nothing to say about it. 

So far as that provision is concerned, it was stated here the other 
day, and I think I can state it safely now, that it is not there because 
the people of Oklahoma want it there. We do not want the Indian 
Territory. Speaking for myself, I say that I hope we never will have 
an}^ connection in the way of statehood with that Territory, and I think 
that is the sentiment of our people generally. The provision is there 
in deference to a sentiment outside of the Territory which has seemed 
to exist that we ought to be united with the Indian Territor}^ We 
w^ant statehood, and if the Indian Territory is to be united with us let 
it be done in the future, and let Oklahoma come into the Union without 
waiting another ten years. 

Mr. Powers. Has not the same provision as that been in a number 
of bills heretofore that have been passed by the House and the Senate 
and the infamy of the provision has never 3^et been discovered ? 

Mr. Havens. Yes, sir; it passed the House of Representatives at 
the last session. 

Mr. Powers. It was in a bill antecedent to that also. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I think it has been in a large number of bills. 

Mr. Havens. It is there not for the purpose of doing injustice to 
the Indian Territory. I will concede that it would be unjust to the 
Indian Territory that it should be taken up b}^ piecemeal hereafter 
and attached to Oklahoma. There is no question about that. I believe 
that if this bill passed with that provision in it the impropriety of 
butchering up the Indian Territory in the future and of creating two 
States would be so clear and manifest that there would not be a voice 
in the Indian Territory or in Oklahoma, and probably very few, if any, 
in Congress, that would favor it. I do not believe it would ever result 
in the union of those Territories. 

Mr. Robinson. Do you know of an}^ instance where Congress was 
so unjust, even although the act clothed them with that power ? 

Mr. Havens. No, sir; I do not. 

Mr. RoDEY. I never knew of that provision being in anj^ bill. 

Mr. Powers. I have been told that it was in a bill passed at the last 
session, and it has been in former bills. 

Mr. Doyle. It was in the first bill introduced ten years ago. 

Mr. Havens. Mr. Doyle stated the other day that the failure to 
locate public buildings in Oklahoma was an indication that they were 
waiting to give the Indian Territorj^ a chance. 

Mr. Chairman, all of the public buildings that have been located 
since the original action locating the university, by the first legisla- 
ture, have been located on the western side of the Territory, showing 
that no such purpose as future union with the Indian Territory has 
been contemplated. In Woods County is one of the finest normal 
schools there is in the West, housed in one of the finest buildings. A 
preparatory school exists in the county just east of it at Tonkawa, and 
another normal school has been located in the western part of the 
Territory. 

Mr. Powers. How man}^ normal schools have 3^ou ? 

Mr. Havens. We have three. 

Mr. Powers. The location of normal schools would not indicate 
much, because if you had the Indian Territory 3^ou would locate some 
in that Territory. 



132 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Havens. That would be so, I think; but 1 sa^^ the matter of 
the location of public buildings does not indicate anything. 

Mr. Lloyd. Why is it that you have a penitentiary and insane 
asylum located as 3^ou have ? 

Mr. Havens. A bill passed the legislature twenty-two or twenty- 
three years ago locating the penitentiary, and it was vetoed by the 
governor. 

I want to go back for a moment and refer to the statehood bill 
passed by the legislature, calling a constitutional convention. That 
bill passed both houses of the legislature and there were but two votes 
against it in council and in the house; but it was vetoed by the governor. 
The governor was a Federal officeholder, and his official occupation 
would have ceased or might have ceased if that bill had become a 
law. To-day that same governor is an advocate of statehood under 
the McGuire bill. He was placed upon a delegation to come here and 
present this matter to this committee. He is not here as a member of 
that delegation on account of business obligations which made it impos- 
sible for him to come. 

Mr. Keid. 1 did not quite get your idea of why he vetoed that bill. 

Mr. Havens. He vetoed it on the ground that it was a bill to secure 
statehood for Oklahoma alone, and he was in favor of a final union 
between Oklahoma and the Indian Territory. 

Mr. Reid. What reason did he give for it, in his veto message ? 

Mr. Havens. You heard it read here the other morning. 

Mr. Reid. 1 was not here when it was read. 

Mr. Havens„ That was the chief reason he gave, that he did not 
think Oklahoma alone should be made a State. 

Mr. Reid. You refer to his being a Federal officeholder. I do not 
quite see what that had to do with vetoing a bill for a public building. 
I want to get at whether that was why he did it. 

Mr. Havens. That is a difficult question for me to answer, but this 
capital question entered into it. The location of the public buildings 
was antagonized b}^ Oklahoma City and Shawnee. They wanted to 
hold off the location of buildings and use them to trade on in order to 
locate the capital in the future. I never could see an}^ other reason 
in it. But since then Congress has passed an act which absolutely 
prohibits us from erecting any public buildings, and we are to-day in 
a condition where we have no power to locate public buildings at all. 

Mr. Robinson. Not even an insane asylum ? 

Mr. Havens, No, sir; we can not locate an insane as^dum. 

The Chairman. Refer to that law, so that we can have it in the 
record. 

Mr. Havens. I do not remember the date of the act. 

The Chairman. It was passed four years ago. 

Mr. Robinson. What do you do with your insane? 

Mr. Havens. I will come to that after a while. These influences 
with reference to the future location of the capital have had the effect 
of preventing the location of other buildings until the capital can be 
located. 

Mr. Robinson. It is held up until after the admission of the Terri- 
tory as a State? 

Mr. Havens. The}^ are held up with a view of using these other 
locations for the purpose of trading in fixing the location of the cap 



I 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 133 

ital; but Congress has interposed and prohibited the location of these 
other buildings. 

Mr. Robinson. 1 think that has been put into the Congressional bill 
because Congress wants to resolve the whole question and decide the 
statehood question before the people of the Indian Territory and Okla- 
homa locate a number of public buildings when there is this conflict 
of sentiment upon the subject. 

Mr. Havens. 1 do not think that is possible, because Mr. Flynn 
was instrumental in having that provision placed in those bills, and 
he certainly had no view of that kind. 

Mr. Lloyd. Was he not a resident of Oklahoma City? 

Mr. Havens. No, sir; he was a citizen of Guthrie. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is he not now a citizen of Oklahoma City? 

Mr. Havens. Yes; he is now. Our condition with reference to 
public buildings is this: We have the insane, the deaf, dumb, and the 
blind and we have no place whatever to keep them; we have our 
criminals, and we have no place whatever to take them or to take care 
of them. We have a contract with the State of Kansas to care for 
our criminals, and we are at the expense of transportation and of pay- 
ing a price to Kansas to take care of them, in which there is a good 
profit. She has now notilied the governor that she will not renew 
the contract to take care of our criminals, and it is a matter of uncer- 
tainty what we will do with them. We have got to go to Arkansas, 
or Missouri, or Texas, or Nebraska, or some neighboring State to have 
them cared for, and it is not probable that any of those States have 
accommodations for them. There are over 300 of them. That is our 
condition with reference to criminals. 

With reference to the insane: They are contracted out. The deaf, 
the dumb, and the blind are taken care of under private contract. 
Some company organizes and puts up a building just as cheap as they 
can, that will make a pretense of answering the purpose, and takes 
the contract for caring for the insane. In the sanitarium in which 
the insane are cared for to-day the stock is selling at 100 per cent 
premium, and it is paying and has paid dividends of 100 per cent on 
the capital under the contract the Territory has made with them. 

The deaf and dumb are taken care of the same wa}^, by pi'ivate con- 
tract. We have no other wa}" to do it. We have no power to locate 
buildings. We are without a penitentiary, without an insane asylum, 
without a deaf and dumb asylum, without a blind asylum, and without 
reformatory institutions. Our 3^outhful offenders, who are usually 
cared for in the States in reformatory institutions, must either be 
sent to the penitentiary along with hardened criminals or turned 
loose. The legislature has passed an act to the efl['ect that these juve- 
nile offenders ma}' be paroled by the judge, upon certain conditions^ 
such as that they shall report to him occasionally at stated times. They 
are turned loose rather than to place them in penitentiaries along with 
old and hardened criminals. We have no power to locate reforma- 
tory institutions. 

Mr. Powers. Have you ever come to Congress and asked them to 
give you permission to locate a penitentiary or an insane asylum any- 
where in the Territory? 

Mr. McGuire. I will answer that. That will be asked at this time. 
We are now met with the proposition from the State of Kansas that 



134 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

unless our next legislature provides for building a penitentiar}- our 
criminals will be turned loose, so far as that State is concerned. We 
will ask that at this time. 

Mr. Henshaw. Mr. Chairman, I want to make an inquir}^ as to what 
course these proceedings will take and what the programme is. 

The Chairman. As 1 understand it, Mr. Henshaw, no other gentle- 
man has announced a desire to address the committee immediately after 
Mr. Havens, so that, in view of that fact, this committee will probabh^ 
adjourn subject to the call of the chairman. The chair laid before the 
committee on yesterday a telegram from certain citizens of Oklahoma, 
stating their desire to be heard before this committee, and when the}^ 
arrive a date will be fixed bv the committee for a hearing. Until that 
time comes, unless Mr. McGuire or some other gentleman interested 
in statehood should announce that someone desires to be heard before 
the committee, we will probably hold no further meetings with refer- 
ence to statehood. 

Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Henshaw is from the Indian Territory. He is a 
member of the bar there, representing the bar association, and he wants 
to be heard. 

Mr. Robinson. When do you want to be heard? 

Mr. Henshaw. I w^ould like to be heard as soon as possible. 

Mr. Robinson. Why can not we hear him to-day ? 

The Chairman. It depends on w^hat is going on in the House. It is 
rather difficult to get members out of the House and get them to come 
down here; but if there is no objection on the part of any member of 
the committee we will take a recess until 2 o'clock. Mr. Havens will 
then complete his argument, and we will then hear Mr. Henshaw. 

The committee thereupon took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m. 

AFTER RECESS. 

The committee met at 2 o'clock p. m., Hon. Edward L. Hamilton 
in the chair. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, shall we proceed informally? I have 
no doubt a quorum will be here in a veiy few minutes. Colonel 
Havens, you might proceed, if you desire. 

STATEMENT OF ROIS. H. E. HAVENS— Continued. 

Mr. Havens. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, w^hen 
the recess was taken at noon I had but one or two more points to 
which I desired to refer, and it will not take me long to cover them 
now. I would like to suggest to this committee the question as to 
when, if existing conditions continue, it would be possible to make 
Oklahoma a State, taking into view the conditions that exist in the 
Indian Territoiy, and how much longer would Oklahoma be kept 
from becoming a State. The conditions there are such that in mj 
judgment it is not at all probable that Congress will consent to include 
that Territor}^ within a State for several jears to come. You heard 
yesterda}^ an intelligent statement of the conditions that exist there 
with reference to these old treaties, the titles to lands, and the neces- 
sit}^ for future action in settling the complications that exist there. 

Now, in conversation since I have been here, with a man who is per- 
fectly familiar with the conditions there and the operation of the 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 135 

Dawes Commission, he expressed the opinion to me that it would be 
impossible for that Commission to complete its work under five 3^ears. 
There is but one tribe that has as yet been allotted its lands — or pos- 
sibly two tribes — the Seminoles and the Creeks, and the rest are yet 
to be allotted; and then come in the questions with regard to the sales 
of these lands, the methods of dealing with the Indians, and the taxing 
of the lands of that Territor}^, and the relations of the Government to 
the Indians, that neither Congress nor the Dawes Commission are likely 
to settle for 3'ears to come. 

Now, what seems to me to be needed is this, that a temporary organi- 
zation of some kind should be given to the Indian Territory by which 
they can proceed to prepare themselves for statehood as other Terri- 
tories have been required to do, and in that wa}^ they would reach 
statehood a great deal quicker than they would to attempt to jump 
straight to it without an}^ preparatory- condition, without am^ Territorial 
organization. 

Mr. Robinson. What form of organization would 3-ou suggest? 

Mr. Havens. My idea is that thej- ought to have a Territorial 
government. 

Mr. Robinson. Could a Territorial form of government be protect- 
ive of the interests and face these conditions that exist in the Indian 
Territory an}' more completeh' than a measure providing for single 
statehood could safeguard and care for all those interests i 

Mr. Havens. I think so, because all Territories remain practically 
or in fact under the control of Congress and the Government. In the 
condition we are in we can not regulate our own afiairs except as Con- 
gress consents to it, and in simply making a Territorial organization 
Congress retains its supervisory power over the conditions that exist 
there. 

Mr. Robinson. And could not Congress in the exercise of that 
power safeguard all the interests and meet the conditions by making a 
single State of the two Territories i 

Mr. Havens. I should doubt much whether it could or not, but I 
do not think that the time has come when Congress will be willing to 
turn over the chaotic condition that exists there to a State government, 
but I think that it will retain its control, as it does over other Terri- 
tories, until conditions are more settled, and that a Territorial form of 
government would be a step in the right direction to further the inter- 
ests of that Territory and make them fit for a State government much 
more quickly than if they insisted on immediate statehood. 

Mr. Thayer. What was the argument in the Indian Territory 
against it. 

Mr. Havens. I do not know-, sir; I have not been here, 3'ou know, 
and I have not heard the discussions on that question, and I do not 
know what the arguments were. 

Mr. Thayer. Would you mind 1113- asking you this question — I do 
not know and I am not clear — has it ever made application for Terri- 
torial government? 

Mr. Havens. There was a bill pending during the last Congress that 
was known as the Moon bill, which was a bill to form a Territorial 
government in that Territoiy. Wh3- it was not acted upon I do not 
know, but I think it was done under this same pressure that is here 
now, coming parth' from the Indian Territory itself, and for reasons 
which I explained this morning — the hope of getting statehood. 



136 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Ma}^ I interrupt you just a moment? 

Mr. Havens. Certainly. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Was not the Moon bill reported unanimously 

Mr. RoDEY. Yes, sir. Mr. Moon blocked the House for four weeks 
because it would not be considered, as will be remembered by members 
present. 

Mr. McGuiRE. You began to advocate the statehood of Oklahoma 
years ago? 

Mr. Havens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McGuiRE. And the condition of Oklahoma at the time 3^ou 
began to advocate statehood for it was about the same as the condition 
of Indian Territor}^ now, was it not? 

Mr. Havens. I do not think so. I do not think we ever had any 
complicated conditions, or an}^ difficulty growing out of land titles or 
the Indian question in Oklahoma, such as exist. in the Indian Territory 
to-day. We never had them. 

Now, in view of the possible action of Congress w^ith reference to 
the Indian Territory, it is my judgment that if Oklahoma is refused 
admission as a State by herself we shall continue to remain out for the 
next five or ten years to come, for even after the treaties of 1897 have 
expired and the power of Congress becomes unquestioned to erect a 
government over that Territor}^ these complications will still exist to 
a great extent, and if a State government is proposed for the Terri- 
tories jointly we will be met by the same conditions that exist to-day 
to a large extent and the whole question will be embarrassed, and it 
will take 3^ears even then to induce Congress to establish a State com- 
prised of both Territories, and that means for Oklahoma a continuance 
out of the Union for from five to ten years more, and with 700,000 
people, in the conditions that exist in Oklahoma to-day, it is an 
injustice to the people of that Territory that they should be kept in 
that condition on account of affairs for which they are not accountable 
and over which they have no control in the Indian Territor}^ Why, 
gentlemen, when the original thirteen States engaged in the war with 
Great Britain for the independence of this countr}^ there was but one 
State then that had an3^thing like the population or w^ealth that 
Oklahoma has to-day. 

The Chairman. Pardon me for interrupting 3^ou; I wish you would 
be as specific as you can as to the difficulties 3^ou find in incorporating* 
the Indian Territory with Oklahoma in a State. 

Mr. Havens. Well, I w^as stating what I think are the difficulties, 
that they are such that it deprives Oklahoma of statehood, that on 
account of the difficulties that exist there, and which will take several 
3^ears to straighten out and untangle, Oklahoma is being kept from 
obtaining a State government, and to wait upon those conditions is an 
injustice to us. 

The Chairman. Your statement that there are conditions in Indian 
Territory, certain conditions, that will make it impossible for Okla- 
homa to become a State, is what I am trying to get 3^ou to explain. 

Mr. Havens. It is not a legal impossibilit3^ — I do not mean to sa3^ 
that, but it is practicalh^ so, because whenever a State government is 
proposed for those Territories jointly, we will continue to be met and 
thwarted. 

Mr. Lloyd. Thwarted, where? 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 187 

Mr. Havens. B}- the conflicting views regarding the settlement of 
the Indian Territory matters. 

The Chairivian. I presume you refer to the Indians when you speak 
of difliculties ? 

Mr. Havens. To the Indians, and to the lands, and the condition 
of land titles. 

The Chairman. You refer to two points, then, the Indians and land 
titles. Will you state to the committee in a few words v/hat the diffi- 
culties would be with reference to the Indians'^ 

Mr. Havens. To the Indians 

The Chairman. Yes. You say there are certain conditions in the 
Indian Territoiy that would make it practically impossible for Indian 
Territory to be incorporated with Oklahoma as a State at this time, 
but that statehood would necessarily have to be postponed at least five 
years. What I want to get at is a specific statement as to what the 
difficulties are. 

Mr. Haa^ens. The difficulties are largely in the allotment of their 
lands and the provisions for the sale of them, and their taxable 
character. 

The Chairman. Now, the allotment of the lands. Proceed, and be 
as specific as 3^ou can, assuming that the members of the committee 
are not as full}^ informed as you are and need specific information. 

Mr. Havens. I believe the statement of Mr. Howe here yesterday, 
as to the condition of things in that Territory in relation to the Indian 
titles and the sale of those lands, is probabl_y better than any that I 
should make. The truth is that I question whether there are more 
than a very few men outside of the Interior Department and those 
attorneys whose business it is to study the situation there who really 
know much about it. 

Mr. Lloyd. That is the very point we are getting at. Now, that 
well-posted individual who made that statement yesterday stated that the 
conditions in Indian Territor}^ were such that they could be admitted 
to statehood at once, and insisted that we accept the Robinson bill, which 
admits both to statehood at once. 

Mr. Havens. In that connection let me call attention to another 
fact. It was stated by Mr. Doyle here, in his remarks, that the Gov- 
ernment had violated its treaties with the Indians in the formation of 
Oklahoma; that it disregarded the treaties with the Indians in the 
formation of the courts in Indian Territory, and otherwise, and that 
having done that, it could establish a State government over the Indian 
Territory just as consistentlv at this time as it could after the treaty 
has expired. Now, there is no question about the legal power of Con- 
gress to do that, but I dispute Mr. Doyle's statement that the Congress 
has ever violated its treaties with the Indians. 

Mr. Sterling. Do you agree with Mr. Howe that the lands might 
be subject to taxation if an}^ kind of a bill w^as passed? 

Mr. Havens. No, sir; not entirely. And I believe Mr. Howe did 
not agree that the Indian lands might be taxed. He said that the lands, 
after being sold, might be taxed. 

Mr. Sterling. He said that eleven-twelfths might be 

Mr. Lloyd. He said seven-elevenths. 

Mr. Sterling. Seven-elevenths, was it? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes; seven-elevenths. 

Mr. Havens. I think he said after thev were sold. 



138 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Sterling. I did not know that he put that limitation on it. 

Mr. Hayens. Yes, sir; not until after the land was transferred from 
the Indians. 

Mr. Sterling. Of course, nobody disputes that — after it is trans- 
ferred; but I understood him to say that seven-elevenths of it could 
be taxed immediately after the Robinson bill was passed. I under- 
stood him to say that those lands could be taxed then. 

Mr. Havens. The title is not transferred from the Indians; it is in 
the Indians. 

Mr. Sterling. No; it is transferred from the Government to the 
Indians. The question is whether or not, by the passing- of the Robin- 
son bill, lands would be made subject to taxation without violating the 
agreement between the Government and the Indians. 

Mr. Havens. Not so long as they remained with the Indians. The 
surplus lands that might be sold would become taxable, and in the 
Cherokee country there are no surplus lands. 

Mr. McGuiRE. There are two things in the way of the Government 
taxing that Indian land, or of its being taxed. First, it never has been 
the policy of the Government of the United States to tax any real 
estate belonging to an Indian as long as the Indian owned the land. 
The second thing is that it has never been the policy of the Govern- 
ment of the United States to allow an Indian to convert real property 
into money except by a very slow, tedious process, for the reason that 
the minute an Indian gets a dollar the other fellow has it. And the 
Government keeps that vigilant watch upon the Indian all the time 
until he is gradually elevated to that position at wtfich the Govern- 
ment thinks he will retain a part of his wealth, at least. 

Mr. Sterling. You do not agree with Mr. Howe's proposition ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, sir; and I have been with the Indian and in the 
Indian Territory for twent}^ two years. 

The Chairman. In case the Indian Territory should be incorporated 
with Oklahoma as a State, then what would be the relation of the 
Indian lands to the State government? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Just what it is in Oklahoma, if you will pardon me. 

Mr, Havens. It would be just what it is in Oklahoma, and as the 
Indians and Congress arranged that it should be. 

The Chairman. Under existing laws? 

Mr. Havens. Well, under existing treaties the Indians take their 
allotments, which allotments contain the best and the most of the 
lands, as the allotments for them and their families. They are usually 
allowed 160 acres for each member of the family. Then the surplus 
after these allotments are made ma}^ be sold to the public generalh^ 
to anybody that will buy. Those lands would become taxable, but the 
lands remaining in the hands of the Indians or that remained in their 
control as allotments, which embraces the great bulk of the land in 
the Territorv, would not be taxable. 

Mr. Wilson. Do you maintain that the State government could not 
tax them? 

Mr. Havens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. How could they contribute to the State government, 
then ? 

Mr. Havens. They would not contribute to the government. 

Mr. RoDEY. Their enabling act, that has not been passed, has the 
provision in it that the constitutional convention shall state in an ordi- 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 139 

nance to be adopted that the}" will not tax the Indian lands in that wa}-. 
Otherwise, the State would have absolute power. The State has abso- 
lute power to tax any property owned by an individual unless it abro- 
gates the power to do it. 

Mr. Steeling. Could they do it by an agreement ? 

Mr. Havens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Robinson. It is held in North and South Dakota that the power 
exists against the Pawpaw Indians of Indian Territoiy. 

^Ir. ]McGuiiiE. It is not onh^ the question of violating the agree- 
ment with the Indians, but the Government persists in extending that 
protection to the Indians. 

Mr. Robinson. Except as to North and South Dakota and the Paw- 
paw Indians being taxed, and the North Dakota Indians being taxed 
on the real estate they hold in fee. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I presume the same conditions exist there as in cer- 
tain regions in Nebraska where the Indian has become civilized, and 
onh^ has perhaps a very little Indian blood, and he has as good busi- 
ness qualilications as white people, and has taken his land in fee, and 
has become a citizen; and in that instance in southern Nebraska, and 
in a few other cases, the Government does tax the land. There is not 
an Indian allotment in Oklahoma that is taxed to-dav. 

Mr. Powers. If I may be allowed to interject a remark, I would say 
that I am satisfied that if our bill, whatever it may be, does not fulh^ 
protect the rights of the Irdians as thev now exist and under treat^^ 
regulations, if it attempts to repeal the restrictions on their alienation, 
or if it attempts to take away any of the rights that the United States 
has given them, it is going to meet with ver}^ strenuous opposition. 

Mr. Havens. In the Five Civilized Tribes they have rights under the 
treaties which protect them to an extent that these Indians, the Paw- 
paws and the Indians of North Dakota, perhaps do not have, and in 
the effort to tax them, either through the State governments or Con- 
gressional action, it would be necessary to disregard those treaties. 

Now, the policy of Congress has always been to respect the treaties 
with the Indians; and I want to refer to the existing treaties which 
]Mr. Doyle claims have alread}^ been violated b}^ Congress. Take the 
case of the Cherokees. Their freat}^ of 1828 conveyed to them 7,000,000 
acres of land as a whole, and the}^ were guaranteed that that should not 
be included within the limits of a State or Territor}' without their con- 
sent, and then the treaty goes on and recites that in addition to the 
7,000,000 acres hereby granted they shall have a perpetual outlet as 
far west as the jurisdiction of the United States extends to reach their 
hunting grounds where the buffalo abounded, and all that sort of thing. 

Now, when Congress came to act on this question in the matter of 
Oklahoma that question arose, whether that treaty which guaranteed 
protection to the Indians from the organization of a State government 
applied to that outlet or not, that is 58 miles wide across the end of 
the Territory, and including the Osage Reservation. The question was 
whether that treatv protected the Indians from the establishment of a 
government or not. There was a length}^ discussion, and it was fully 
discussed in Congress at that time, and it was the judgment of Con- 
gress that those treaties were not applicable to that Territory; that it 
was simph' conveyed to the Indians as an outlet, and that Congress 
had a right to establish a Territorial government over it. 

The Chairman. They have simply a right of way ? 



140 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Havens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Going and coming; an easement? 

Mr. Havens. Yes, sir; in a former Congress Mr. Garland, Attorne};^- 
General of the United States, in an opinion, called the attention of the 
Committee on Territories of the House of Representatives to this mat- 
ter. He was the Attorney-General under President Cleveland. He 
wrote a letter, addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Terri- 
tories of this House, in which he stated the opinion that the Indians 
had not even the right to lease the lands in that outlet for pasture to 
cattle dealers. As a matter of fact the Indians claiming those lands, 
claiming that they had a right to them, the Government finally recog- 
nized their claim and bought the lands from them and paid them 
either $7,000,000 or 18,000,000 for them, although in the opinion of 
the Attorney-General of the United States they really had no claim to 
them. 

The Chairman. Could not a State be created. Congress imposing 
conditions on the State so created with reference to the Indians and 
Indian lands, so as to entirely protect the Indians and the Indian lands? 

Mr. Havens. I would like to finish the point that I am on. 

The Chairman. Pardon me; I thought that you had finished it. I 
would like to have you take that up later. 

Mr. Havens. Very well. Now, Congress in organizing the Terri- 
tory of Oklahoma did not disregard her treaty, did not assume to do 
so, but held that the treat}^ was not applicable to that territory — the 
Cherokee Outlet. The same view was taken with regard to the other 
lands obtained from the Seminoles and the Creeks. Congress had 
purchased those lands from the Creeks and Seminoles for the purpose 
of locating other Indian tribes upon them, and they were occupied by 
other Indian tribes who had no such treaties with the Government, 
and the view of Congress was that these treaties did not prohibit Con- 
gress from placing them under the jurisdiction of a Territorial gov- 
ernment. Now, whether the view of Congress was correct or not I 
do not know; I simply place the judgment of that Congress at that 
time against the judgment of Mr. Doyle now, and say that there were 
no treaties violated in the organization of Oklahoma. 

Then Mr. Doyle states that those treaties were ignored and trampled 
upon in the organization of the courts in the Indian Territory. Now, 
before Congress established a court in the Indian Territory it made 
treaties with ever}^ one of those tribes obtaining permission to do so, 
and I will read here from the treaty with the Cherokee Nation. This 
is the treat}^ of 1866: 

The Cherokees also agree that a court or courts may be established by the United 
States within said territory, with such jurisdiction and organized in such manner as 
may be prescribed by law, provided that the judicial tribunals of the United States 
shall be allow^ed to retain exclusive jurisdiction of the civil and criminal cases arising 
within their territory in which members of that nation, by nativity or adoption, 
shall be the only parties, or where the cause of action shall arise in the Cherokee 
Nation, except where otherwise provided in this treaty. 

A similar agreement was made with all those nations before Congress 
assumed to establish a court in those Territories, and it did not do it in 
violation of the treaty, but after obtaining a treaty giving Congress the 
power to do it. There was no treaty violated in that respect, but through- 
out all this transaction with the Indians of that Territoiy the Govern- 
ment has alwa3^s carefully recognized the rights of the Indians under 
these treaties, and has never taken a step to interfere with those rights 



I 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 141 

until it has, b}^ treaty or otherwise, obtained the consent of the Indians 
to do so. 

Now, the question is whether Congress will now, or at an}' near time 
in the future, trample upon those treaties. 

The treaties of 189T, made with all of those tribes, exempt them 
from State government until their tribal relations are dissolved and 
their lands have been allotted, and at this time, in my judgment, Con- 
gress can not without ignoring those treaties pass an act that would 
extend a State government over that Territory. 

Mr. Robinson. In that connection I want to call your attention to 
the statement that was made within a week before the Indian Affairs 
Committee of the House of Representatives by the chairman of the 
Dawes Commission, that by March 9, 1905, they will have entirely 
completed their work. 

Mr. Havens. I do not believe a word of it. AVe have heard that 
from the Dawes Commission for the last six or eight years, that they 
were about to complete their work, and that Dawes Commission will 
hang on for years to come. The\' have more work to do than they 
can do in that time. The Department has indicated to them that they 
must hurry up and finish within the next year or two. but they have 
been doing that for 3'ears before, and it has not completed its work, 
and now^here near completed it, and it will not be completed by 1905. 

Mr. Thayer. You spoke about the Cherokee section here, and the 
fact that the Government bought that land back of them for the pur- 
pose of placing other tribes on it. 

Mr. Havens. The Delawares, the Choctaws, the Seminoles, and 
the Chickasaws. 

Mr. Thayer. Well, when they did place the others on these lands 
was there any treaty with these last tribes, or did the Government 
hold the land and give them the rental of it? 

Mr. Havens. No, sir: no treaties existed with them then on that 
line. 

Mr. Thayer. The}" could put the State government over them at 
any time without violating any rights ? 

Mr. Havens. Certainly; and did do it without any question. 

Mr. Robinson. I would like, if you are through with that, to ask 
you if the Creek Nation has not now the power of alienation, and if 
they are not pursuing that right and alienating their lands, and if that 
does not open up 3,800,000 acres, if they will alienate, to purchase by 
others from them, and is not that now the present condition in the 
Creek Nation ? 

Mr. Havens. That is true in the Creek Nation. That is the only 
one, or perhaps it is so among the Seminoles. I did not know about 
that, but the Seminoles own a small strip of countrv there, and they 
have had their allotments completed, and that is the only one of the 
five tribes that has had its allotments made. 

Mr. Robinson. And they are limited to 10 acres to each individual, 
which can not under the law be alienated at all ? 

Mr. Havens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Robinson. Of the 3,800,000 acres there is that per capita that 
can not be alienated ? 

Mr. Havens. Yes, sir; that is correct. Now, Mr. Chairman, what 
was the question that you asked me a short time ago, as to whether 
these rights could not be safeguarded in a State government. 



142 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

The Chairman. It was that in effect. 

Mr. Havens. It is possible that that might be done, but that is not 
what we in Oklahoma are most interested in. Is it probable that 
Congress will undertake to do anything of that sort? Is it not prob- 
able that Congress will undertake to retain its control over that 
Territory until these chaotic conditions are settled ? Will they estab- 
lish a government and undertake control of that character at this 
time or at any future time? No; not for the next two years. If Con- 
gress respects those treaties they can not pass any bill on the subject. 

It will be two 3^ears before the expiration of the treaties of 1897, 
when you can pass a law that would extend the boundaries of a State 
or even a Territory around those tribes. So there is two 3^ears, at least, 
before Congress has a right under those treaties to pass a statehood 
act that would include that Territor}^ Then, when the two j^ears 
have expired, and you undertake to pass a joint statehood bill and 
provide these guaranties, you are met by the same difficulties of 
unsettled conditions there, and it would take 3^ears to get a statehood 
bill through the Congress of the United States. Now, I do not sa}^ 
that Congress has not the power to pass a statehood bill now, but to 
do it it must override treaties which for sevent}^ years it has respected, 
and under all conditions and at all times has held to be sacred, and has 
never in any instance violated in any particular. 

Is it so eager to make a State out of the Indian Territory now that 
at the close of this long career in the Indian Territory it is going to 
trample upon those treaties and disregard them ? I sa}^ that you will 
not do it, and in the mean time we in Oklahoma have to sit back and 
wait. And when the two years have expired which yet remain, we 
will have the same difficulties to encounter, and we will come here and 
talk about the difficulties in the Indian Territory and be still further 
embarrassed and delayed, and to the people of Oklahoma it looks as if 
the only thing that would secure statehood for Oklahoma within a con- 
siderable period of years in the future is a bill which will admit Okla- 
homa to statehood now without reference to the Indian Territory. 

Mr. Thayer. If I mistake not, it has been stated here on several 
occasions by several parties that the Indians in Indian Territory hav- 
ing these reservations were perfectly willing and anxious for statehood, 
and, if so, could not the}" release any rights they have not to have 
statehood passed over them? 

Mr. Havens. You might make treaties with them, if desirable, and 
I am glad that you reminded me of that, because I would say that the 
Indians are opposed to joint statehood with Oklahoma. None of them 
are in favor of it. They are all opposed to it; and recentl}^, in the 
month of December, I think — was it not, Mr. Foley? 

Mr. Foley. Yes. 

Mr. Havens (continuing). The Indians at a convention, in which all 
the tribes were fully represented, passed resolutions protesting against 
being included in statehood with Oklahoma. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Unanimously? 

Mr. Havens. Unanimously. And they are opposed to this state- 
hood with Oklahoma under any conditions. 

But let me say another thing. If you will ask any of these several 
gentlemen here who are here from the Indian Territory what they would 
prefer to have, and what the people would prefer to have in that Ter- 
ritory, I venture to say that every one of them would say that the 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 143 

people there would rather have a separate organization, that 90 per 
cent of the white people of that Territory ^vould prefer a separate and 
distinct organization from Oklahoma. But they are here asking joint 
statehood because they see nothing else in sight. Tlie}' think that 
possibly by attaching themselves to Oklahoma they can secure legisla- 
tion more speedily; but it is not what they want. At heart they are 
opposed to it. and prefer a distinct organization. A Territorial organ- 
ization or representation through a delegate in Congress is what the 
people of the Territory- actually prefer, and the}^ are only here favor- 
ing the idea of joint statehood with Oklahoma because there is nothing 
else in sight for them, and that seems to be the onh^ hope in their view 
of things of getting legislation which the}^ need. 

Mr. KoBiNSOX. Xow I assume that you have reached a branch where 
I might interrupt you. Is it not true that there may be leaders and 
also the rank and file among these Indians, all of whom are intelli- 
gent people in the Indian Territor}^ quite intelligent? Kow, does 
there seem to be a division of sentiment between those who are lead- 
ers, who might profit b}^ their leadership in these nations, and the 
rank and file of the Indians ? 

Mr. Havens. If there is, I am not aware of it. 

Mr. Robinson. And that the latter, or the rank and file, prefer sin- 
gle statehood and have petitioned to that efi'ect. 

Mr. Havens. I am not aware of anything of that kind. It may be 
true; but I have been assured, and since I have been here in the last 
two or three days, in conversations with the representatives of the 
Indian Territory here, that what I have stated represents the actual 
conditions in that Territor3\ 

Mr. Robinson. Those you refer to as being opposed to the single 
statehood of the two Territories were those who might be termed 
leaders, or in an ofiicial position, who might receive benefit b}^ reason 
of their official position, were the}' not^ 

Mr. Havens. I suppose ordinarilv the men who would be selected 
as delegates to the convention to represent their tribes would be the 
leading men. That would be the wa}- with the political conventions 
of the political parties of this countiy. 

Mr. Robinson. But the question is. Do they represent the senti- 
ment of the people ? 

Mr. Havens. They claim to do so. They were sent there as the 
representatives of their tribes, and they unanimoush' adopted resolu- 
tions protesting against single statehood. 

Mr. Thayer. Can 3^ou comprehend the condition of mind that a 
member of this committee is in when for two or three days he hears 
from amiable and excellent gentlemen, familiar with the conditions 
there, who come here and assert as a fact that the people of the Indian 
Territory' want statehood with Oklahoma, and then the next day 
another set of equalh^ intelligent and excellent men come here and 
assert that they do not want it? Has there ever been any vote in con- 
vention, anything by which the wishes of the majorit}' of the people 
of Indian Territory have been expressed, and is it in writing anywhere? 

Mr. Havens. There is not, so far as 1 know, any expression of the 
opinion of the people of the Territory' taken where all of the people were 
represented. The Indians have expressed themselves, and the white 
population have held various conventions and participated in conven- 
tions on the statehood question, and they are divided among them- 



144 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

selves at home; but my proposition was this, that even the Indian 
Territory men, these who are present here, will say that while they 
are advocating joint statehood, they do so because it seems to be the 
only thing possible to secure; but that the}^ would prefer, if they could 
have their way about it, that nine-tenths of the people in the Indian 
Territory would perfer an organization of their own, an independent 
government, and I believe when any of them addresses you, if 3^ou will 
put that question to him in that way, that is the reply you will get. 

Mr. Robinson. Now, you speak about the representative character 
of these gentlemen of whom 3^ou speak, and of whom speaking yon 
have said to the committee some things. Do j^ou know anything 
about the method of selecting those representatives of the Indian 
tribes, or were they selected as were some other delegates you 
described — delegates to conventions, where some people met who 
elected somebody who never served. 

Mr. Havens. Mr. Foley understands that question, and I would 
be glad for him to explain it. I do not know anj^thing about that. 
But usually the representative bodies of the Indians represent the 
sentiments of their tribes very faithfully, and they have to do so in 
order to be leaders. 

Now, if there are no further questions, gentlemen, I believe that I 
have said all that I desire to. 

Mr. Robinson. Do 3^ou claim that the Indians have a treaty arrange- 
ment with the United States Government whereby no statehood gov- 
ernment could be established over them? 

Mr. Havp^ns. I do, most certainly; there is no question about that. 

Mr. Robinson. Do you recall that it was sought in the negotiations 
between the Dawes Commission and the Indians to insert such a pro- 
vision, but that was not inserted in the treatv? 

Mr. Havens. Why, Mr. Robinson, in the original treaty of 1828 and 
which has been — now, I will read you from the Creek and Seminole 
treaties — 

The United States hereby solemnly agree and bind themselves that no State or 
Territory shall ever pass laws for the government of the Creek or Seminole tribes of 
Indians, and that no portion of either of the tracts defined in the first and second 
articles of this agreement shall ever be embraced or included within or annexed to 
any Territory or State. 

Now, that provision is in all of those treaties with every one of those 
tribes, and it has never been abrogated except under the treaties of 
1897, which provide that the tribal relations shall cease in 1906, and 
under that it is held that after that time and until that time this treaty 
is still in effect. The treaty has not been set aside by an}^ subsequent 
treat3^ It is in force as much as when it was enacted. 

Mr. Robinson. Then that restriction on the establishment of a state 
government over the Indians would cease in 1906? 

Mr. Havens. That will cease in 1906, under the treaties of 1897. 

STATEMENT OF MR. GEOEGE A. HEFSHAW. 
The Chairman. You will address the committee on the bill on 



Mr. Henshaw. On the Indian Territory's position on the piecemeal 
clause of the McGuire bill, and a few local observations. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I only desire to be heard on one or 
two propositions, and it has been suggested that I explain the system 
of our government in the Territory. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 14:5 

Mr. Thayer. In what capacity do you come here? 

Mr. Henshaw. I am in Washington on legal business before the 
Department of the Interior, and also as one of the committee of the 
Bar Association of the Southern District of the Indian Territor}^, in 
the interest of some needed judicial legislation for the Territory. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do you, in coming here to-day, represent anj^body 
except yourself ? 

Mr. Henshaw. No, sir; I can not say that I do. In other words, I 
am not here or was not sent here for the purpose of appearing before 
this committee. In fact, this statehood legislation was not considered 
at the convention in which the arrangement was made for this judicial 
legislation. 

The particular points that I want to dwell upon are the conditions 
and the nature of our government in the Indian Territory. It seems 
that the Indian Committee — I do not want to criticise Congress nor the 
legislation of Congress for the Indian Territory — has been guided solel}^ 
by the interests of the Indians alone. It seems that they have lost 
sight of the other 600,000 population that dwell within those borders. 
The reason for that can be readily explained, because of people coming 
here to represent different interests in the name of the Indians, want- 
ing certain policies pursued in many instances, that would complicate 
matters and make the opportunities for private gain greater; and 
much legislation has been passed in the name of the Indian which was 
not for the benefit of the Indian. We have down there a kind of 
judicial government. We have four judges for the Indian Territory 
who act in their respective districts as governors. 

The Chairman. Define those districts. 

Mr. Henshaw. The southern district consists of the Chickasaw 
Nation; the central consists, as I understand, of the Choctaw Nation; 
the western of the Seminole and Creek nations; the northern of the 
Cherokee Nation. 

The Chairman. Do these judges hold courts, and at what places? 

Mr. Henshaw. They hold court in the southern district at six differ- 
ent places, Ardmore being what we call the head of the court, and in 
the central district the}?^ hold court at seven different places, and in the 
western district several places, and also in the northern district at 
several places. There are about 12,000 to 15,000 cases, civil and 
criminal, filed in these courts each year, of which these four judges 
dispose or try to dispose, and also they act as a supreme court of the 
Territory. 

The Chairman. By what law are these judges created, and how is 
their jurisdiction defined? 

Mr. Henshaw. The law is composed of the different acts of Con- 
gress, and the jurisdiction is about the same as that of the Federal 
courts in the States combined with all the jurisdiction that the State 
courts possess. The}'^ have a similar jurisdiction to that of the com- 
bined jurisdiction of the Federal and State courts of the several States. 

The Chairman. How are the}" created, these judges? 

Mr. Henshaw. The}^ are created by act of Congress. 

The Chairman. Are they appointed? 

Mr. Henshaw. They are appointed for four years, and that is 
another thing that should be remedied. 

The Chairman. Appointed b}- whom? 

Mr. Henshaw. Appointed by the President. If thej were appointed 

OKLA 10 



146 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

for life they would not be susceptible to influences. I am not saying 
that they are, but Federal judges are appointive judges, and they are 
less susceptible if the}?^ are appointed for life, because they do not have 
to look after future appointments. However, 1 do desire to say in 
behalf of all the appointive officers and the marshals of the Indian 
Territory that there never has been a set of officers that has so faith- 
fully tried to enforce the law, and they do enforce the law. 

The Chairman. What lower courts, if any, are there in Indian 
Territory. 

Mr. Henshaw. We have 24 United States commissioners, I believe, 
or, rather, six for each judicial district, which have the same jurisdic- 
tion as the justices of the peace in Arkansas in civil matters, and also 
the same jurisdiction as United States commissioners in the States, to 
hear preliminary hearings, etc. 

Mr. Powers. To hear civil matters up to $100? 

Mr. Henshaw. That jurisdiction has been increased to |300 now. 

Mr. Thayer. Are justices of the peace appointed by the people 
there, or by the National Government here? 

Mr. Henshaw. They are appointed b}^ the judges of the respective 
districts, and are under the supervision of the judges. 

Mr. Thayer. What salaries do the judges get, those four judges? 

Mr. Henshaw. The four judges get $5,000 each and some additional 
expenses, and the commissioners get $1,500 each per year, and the}^ 
have of course marshals, one marshal for each of the four districts and 
his deputies. 

The mentioned officers are our governors, judges, and legislature. 
They do business. They do work. They try a murder case some- 
times in a day to a day and a half or three days. A case that they 
would probably try here in Washington for four or five weeks we 
would try in a day and a half and have the man in the Fort Leaven- 
worth penitentiar}^ on the third day, easy. [Laughter.] 

They have to do that. They can not transact their business other- 
wise. But it puts us in this position, that the rights of people are 
disposed of hurriedl3^ It may be that they are disposed of correctly 
or perhaps they are not, but there is no remedy if they are not. 

Mr. RoDEY. Does an}^ appeal lie from your court to the Supreme 
Court of the United States ? 

Mr. Henshaw. In some cases on constitutional questions. 

Mr. Robinson. Can you give us a statement of the size of their 
dockets and what the}^ dispose of in the year? 

Mr. Henshaw. I have written for a statement of that and the clerk 
of the court says that it will be here in a few days. I can only give 
it to you now approximately. There are about 3,500 to 4,000 cases 
filed in each district annuall}^ and there are now 600 prisoners in jail 
awaiting trial. 

Mr. Robinson. Criminal cases? 

Mr. Henshaw. Criminal and civil cases, both. 

Mr. Robinson. What provision have you as to giving recognizances 
in criminal cases? 

Mr. Henshaw. Of course, if they are indicted before the grand jury 
the bond is fixed by motion before the court, or if they are bound 
over before a commissioner. If they hold a man for murder his case 
is put without bail, and we make the motion on writ of habeas corpus 
or by agreement. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 147 

Mr. Robinson. What instances can 3^011 cite of delays in prisoners 
awaiting the determination of a court? 

Mr. Henshaw. What do 1 understand by that? 

Mr. Robinson. I understand that people who are convicted and who 
are appealing may be unable to give bonds and are unable to secure a 
hearing of their cases, and are thus kept in jail or prison for a 3^ear 
or two awaiting a determination of their case. 

Mr. Henshaw. Well, that is often the case. There is no provision 
for giving them an}^ relief by way of giving bond after conviction, 
except in special cases in the discretion of the court. They usually 
spend the time pending appeal in the penitentiary at hard labor. Now, 
as a result of this crowded condition of the courts 

.Mr. Thayer. Let us follow that a little further. These jurors are 
chosen b\^ some method? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thayer. Is that prescribed by the Government here? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir; they have a jury commission, which meets 
at each term of the court and draws the jury for the succeeding term. 

Mr. Thayer. Then, how do you differ in the Indian Territory, as 
far as the judicial investigation part of it goes, from other Territories, 
except that you have more business and have not judges enough? 

Mr. Henshaw. That is the principal difficulty, having that crowded 
condition. I am not saying that we differ particularly, except that 
we have no intermediate courts. We are in a crowded condition. 
We only have a judiciary in name. Four judges are trying to do the 
work of thirty judges in the States. There are enough of men now in 
jail to occup}^ the time of the present judiciary for eighteen months, 
if the}^ all get sufficient time to have a fair trial. 

Mr, Lloyd. Has this matter of courts, about which you are now 
talking, any connection with the question of statehood? 

Mr. Henshaw. No, sir; it was simply to explain the conditions 
there and to illustrate how a people can be neglected wdien the}^ have 
no one to look after their interests. I only wanted to say a few words 
upon the court proposition and to show the policy of the Government 
toward 700,000 people without an official head to make their conditions 
known, not even a delegate. How came the white man there and 
what is his status? is one of the propositions that I wanted to try to 
discuss before the committee. After they established the Indian peo- 
ple there, and the States adjoining became populated, those wilder 
Indians in the Comanche territory would come down and commit 
depredations on the white settlers in the States, which, of course, is a 
long history. The Government realized that the only solution to the 
Indian problem was to civilize them and mix them with white people 
and lose the identity of the race b}" amalgamation. Now, the Indians 
themselves, together with the Government, in a sense, invited the 
white people into the Indian Territory for this very purpose, although 
it was not expressed in that way. Thej^ have gone there, and married 
the Indian in a great many instances, and of course in the slow stages 
of progress through these marriages between the white man and the 
Indian the Indian has been improved in condition and educated and 
raised many degrees higher. 

The white men have been the benefactors of the Indians. At the 
time when they went into the Territory the land was not considered 
as of practically any value at all, and the}" have gone there as the bene- 



148 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

factors of the Indian race. They have been civilizers. The}^ have 
done more to raise the standard of the Indian than all the Carlisle 
schools and all the money invested in that way, although the schools 
have done great work, but it has too often been the case that a gradu- 
ate of one of those great institutions would return to his original 
native customs and habits, and before an}^ substantial progress was 
made the conditions at home had to be removed. 

Now, all the legislation that has originated in the halls of Congress 
has been with the view of legislation for the Indian alone, and his 
benefactors who have gone into the Territory and made a wild, howl- 
ing wilderness worth millions of dollars have to-dav no consideration 
in the halls of this Congress; nor have they had at any time in their 
history, except what they have gotten b}^ sending men and lobbies 
here — and v/hen I speak of that I mean legal lobbies. They have paid 
their expenses and time to present the urgent needs of the people; and 
I say every piece of legislation in reference to the Indian Territory 
that has been established has cost the people there, all told, 1250,000 
in actual expenses and time of men coming here to explain the condi- 
tions. You can go to the officers down there and ask them to make in 
their official reports a statement of conditions existing there, but they 
answer and say, "That is not a part of our business, and we do not 
want to be dabbling in outside work;" and the departments here have 
nothing but these official reports to go b}^ They do not include the 
conditions and the wants of the white people of that country. 

Now, as to Oklahoma. I want to state our position, and I want to 
state it as fairly as I can. I do not want to be governed altogether b}^ 
how I feel about it, but by how I think my people feel about it. Okla- 
homa has, by some of her gentlemen who addressed this committee, 
compared her glowing condition, and the injustice that would be done 
to that country by attaching the Indian Territor}- to it. Oklahoma 
has been one of the spots under the Government most favored by Con- 
gress. Congress has given that people more money than it has given 
the people of any other Territory of equal size, perhaps, in the whole 
United States. Now, they argued here ^^esterday, and as I understand, 
they say that if, as by this Sobinson bill, the new State is granted 
this public land out in the wild arid regions of Oklahoma, and make 
the difference up by the $5,000,000 provided in the Robinson bill, that 
that would be an injustice to Oklahoma. Those lands in Oklahoma 
belong, as I understand it, to the United States, and it would be the 
United States giving us that amount. Did she not give Oklahoma 
about 120,000,000 in their homes bill grant, and lands worth ^40,000,000, 
all told, for schools and public buildings ? 

Has not the United States given to Oklahoma the money to build 
everj^ public institution that she has';/ 

Has she not bought those Indian lands and given them to the people 
of Oklahoma'^ 

When we have asked Congress to buy that 450,000 acres of coal land 
in the Indian Territory and give it to us as a school fund we have been 
met with a deaf ear. If Congress will do half as much by us as she 
has done by Oklahoma we will forge to the front with more public 
institutions, and a greater empire than Oklahoma will ever have. We 
have got the natural resources. We are the richest people on the face 
of the earth in natural resources, and have the resources to develop 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 149 

the same, and are now forging to the front, notwithstanding all the 
impediments thrown in our ^vsly. 

Now, what is our position in the Indian Territoiw with reference to 
Oklahoma? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Do you mean to say that the policy of the Govern- 
ment toward Oklahoma has been an}^ difi'erent from whatit has been 
with other Western States and Territories that have been admitted as 
States and Territories heretofore ? 

Mr. Hexshaw. No, sir: 1 do not sav that. I simply say what I have 
said in answer to the criticism that has been made as to the Indian 
Territory. I do sa}^ you have been a pet of Congress for fourteen 
years. I will illustrate it this way: 

We have been a people for which there has been absolutely nothing 
done except for 5 per cent of our people out there, as I said before, 
who have actually gone into that countrj^ and made the Indians rich. 
The Indian is wealthy, in a sense. Now, even in all of our towns the 
land is being sold by the Indians, and we are paving into the Indian 
treasur}^ money that will be divided among the Indians. I am not 
complaining about the favors conferred on the Indian: this was entirely 
justifiable, but the neglect of the white people in their helpless condition. 

In all the acts of Congress, in all the protection that has been given 
to the Indian, there has not been a word said about any legislation 
against trusts, monopolies, quacks in any of the professions, except, I 
believe, in the legal profession. Before we can practice law in that 
country' we have to be admitted to the United States courts the same 
as in any other place. Not a word of railroad restrictions occurs in 
an}^ of the legislation. When the Arkansas statutes were extended 
over the Indian Territorv the chapter on railroads was omitted. Yet 
it was just as applicable as any of the Arkansas law. The}^ have no 
law down there against the practice of medicine and selling drugs by 
anybody. The railroads can charge any price they desire for freights. 
The white people have practically paid the taxes that run the Indian 
government. Every merchant in the Indian Territory, while that is 
now in disptite, has had to pay to the Indian government 1 per cent 
on the average amount of stock he carried annually, and if he refused 
to pay it tlie Indian agent, backed by the United States Government, 
came and drove his cattle and moved his stock of goods from the Ter- 
ritory. That goes on to-day. We have not onh' made their country 
rich, but we have ftirnished the money to run their governments. 

There is not a province in Russia but has greater libertv than the 
700.000 people of the Indian Territorv. To our king, the Secretary 
of the Interior, all bow. The judges tremble before him. Grafters 
and combinations have fostered under his theoretical administration. 
What I mean to sa}' is. he governs that Territorv 1.500 miles away, on 
a theoretical basis; and his theories work about the same as a farmer 
that farms on paper. The Secretary doubtless is trving to do justice 
b}^ all, but his means of information and his official advisers in the 
Territor}^ are not always acting without selfish interest. 

Mr. Henshaw. They call this tax a license: btit, of cotirse. the 
people there are living in their own houses, having a title to their own 
ground. This is in the towns. And they have a cattle tax, which 
applies to white people or noncitizens, and it has been a matter of 
trouble pretty much all the time. I speak of it simply to show the 
conditions there. 



150 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Lloyd. You have no government down there except by the 
courts ? 

Mr. Henshaw. None except by the United States courts, and the 
Secretary of the Interior is commonl}^ called "the king." 

The Chairman. You spoke of the judiciar}^ there, and I should like 
to ask 3^ou what you have which might conform to the legislative 
branch of any other government? 

Mr. Henshaw. We have not a thing on earth. 

The Chairman. Have you an}^ thing which might conform to the 
executive branch of any other government? 

Mr. Henshaw. We have the respective judges of each district, who 
perform such functions as the executives in other countries wath respect 
to recognizing requisitions and examining requisitions and things like 
that, and we have the Secretary of the Interior. 

The Chairman. Then your judges perform legislative and executive 
and judicial duties? 

Mr. Lloyd. Not legislative. 

The Chairman. They are practically legislative? 

Mr. Henshaw. Except what is done like the}^ did under the old 
common law when they had a question for which there was no law to 
appl}^, and the decision of the court establishes a new precedent. 

The Chairman. Now, another thing. Have these Indian nations 
separate forms of government, or sluj forms of government? 

Mr. Henshaw. They had each one of them a separate republican 
form of government. By the treaties all of their rights to pass any 
laws of an 3^ consequence whatever have been abrogated, and they onl}^ 
meet now to appropriate what money they collect from the white 
people and such as Congress may paj^ them, and to have an executive 
to assist in the disposition of their propert}". 

Mr. Powers. Let me ask 3^ou a few questions, for I have been down 
in 3^our Indian Territor3^, 3?^ears ago. Original!)^, all this land was 
granted to these four tribes? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Powers. It was regarded as their particular ownership? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Powers. The white men went there ? 

Mr. Henshaw. l^es, sir. 

Mr. Powers. If I ma3^ use the term, vou sav the3^ were "invited 
there?" 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Powers. Who invited them ? 

Mr. Henshaw^ The Indians. 

Mr. Powers. Do 3^ou think they did? 

Mr. Henshaw\ Well, that is the histoiy of the matter. 

Mr. Powers. Has not this legislation you complain of been placed 
upon the ground, or been based upon the fact that the various speculators 
and men of all sorts, and cattle herders, were poaching upon the 
Indians and it was necessary to protect them'? 

Mr. Henshaw. That was the theory, but it is hardly right to make 
600,000 people suffer for the sins of a few grafters, the most of whom 
are ex-Federal officials. 

Mr. Powers. Did not Grover Cleveland have to institute ver3^ 
strenuous measures to get these cattle herders off'? 

Mr. Henshaw. No, sir; that was in Oklahoma. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 151 

Mr. PowEKS. Well, in Oklahoma? 

Mr. Henshaw. You see, he has done a great deal for Oklahoma by 
that; but who has done an3^thing for the Indian Territory? 

Mr. Powers. Take 1857. Were there many of these white people 
there at that time except such as belonged to the tribe by marriage? 

Mr. Henshaw. 1 can only answer by history or what I have heard. 
Of course I was not there at the time, but understand there was but 
few white people there. 

Mr. Powers. I will ask 3^ou another question: When was the law 
passed which permitted, under certain conditions and under certain 
restrictions, the sale of house lots to white men? 

Mr. Henshaw. It was in 1896, if I remember correctly. 

Mr. Powers. Up to 1896 no white man coald acquire an}^ rights 
there in real estate, could he, except by becoming a member of a 
tribe? 

Mr. Henshaw. That is all. 

Mr. Powers. And if a white man was there, in accordance with the 
Indian custom, he became a member of the tribe? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Powers. Now, go back twenty -six years. Did not the Indians 
at that time have a very good civilization ? Did they not have good 
schools, and 

Mr. Henshaw. No, sir; I will say that they did not, in part of the 
Territory; and in part the}^ may have had a very good civilization. 

Mr. Powers. I thought they had ver^^ good schools there. 

Mr. Henshaw. They had good schools, but I do not remember what 
time they were established. They had good schools established in 
different localities, but, as I said before, the condition west of them in 
Oklahoma was a menace to the white settlers in the different States. 

Mr. Powers. At that time, twent3^-six years ago, there were no 
settlers in Oklahoma? 

Mr. Henshaw. Nothing except Indians. 

Mr. Powers. Nothing but Indians ? 

Mr. Henshaw. That is as I understand. 

Mr. Powers. And it was to preserve and protect the rights of these 
Indians that this peculiar legislation has been adopted? 

Mr. Henshaw. That has been the theory, yes, sir; but the legisla- 
tion, like some of the Secretary of the Interior's rales and regulations 
did not always work as it was intended it should work. 

Mr. Powers. I suppose so. 

Mr. Henshaw. That is what I say; that has been the theory upon 
which the Government acted. As I say, when the Indian government 
passed laws permitting and authorizing the people to lease lands to 
white people for agricultui-e, that they might get their land in cultiva- 
tion, and passed laws authorizing the marriages between Indians and 
white people, I say that was an invitation to the white people to go 
there and cultivate the lands. 

Mr. Powers. As I say, the white people who went there and married 
into the Indian tribes became members of those tribes? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir; they become Indian citizens and deserve 
more credit than the Carlisle school for their part of the work in the 
civilization; yet the}^ have been held up to scorn during argument, which 
was wholly unwarranted. 

Mr. Powers. How is that? 



152 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Foley. A Avhite man there who marrie?: an Indian becomes a 
citizen of that particular tribe, and deserves the honor and praise for 
his gTeat work as a benefactor of his adopted ra(?e, as well as for his 
courage. 

Mr. Powers. And they have all the ria'hts of a member of that 
tribe? 

Mr. Foley. Yes, sir. If 3^ou will permit me I will explain. Mr. 
Henshaw said that the people were invited there. I know something 
about that. They were invited there in this way: I was a licensed 
trader in that country, and came there under a license from the Gov- 
ernment, and at that time — that was twenty -five j^ears ago, we will 
say^the white people were invited there b}^ the Indians in this way, 
to rent their lands to them. A great many white people came in 
from all the States and rented lands from the Indians because they 
could get them cheaper. 

Mr. Powers. They could get them cheaper than they could get 
them anywhere else ? 

Mr. Foley. Yes, sir; and the}^ went there and rented them. 

Mr. Powers. They went there and rented Indian lands? 

Mr. Foley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is it not true that the white man went there because 
he thought he could do better than he could anywhere else? 

Mr. Powers. Better than he could in Kansas or iVrkansas? 

Mr. Henshaw. That is the motive that carries us anywhere. 

Mr. Robinson. How many whites are there now? 

Mr. PIenshaw. Six hundred thousand. It does not solve this prop- 
osition, even, to go back and discuss the old treaties and regulations. 
There have been new treaties. The Indian government is dissolved 
now, so far as any actual government exists in the sense that we use 
the word government. And they would cut no more figure, practi- 
cally speaking, in state legislation out there and would be no more 
hindrance or conflict than a Democratic convention in Pennsylvania 
does in the government of that State. [Laughter.] 

Mr. McGuiRE. Or a Republican convention would in South Caro- 
lina. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Henshaw. That is so. 

Mr. Robinson. If you have reached a point where I can interrupt 
you, I would like to ask you a question, or I will withhold the sugges- 
tion that I was about to make if you can not now be interrupted. 

Mr. Henshaw. I can be interrupted anywhere. It does not con- 
fuse me. 

Mr. Robinson. During your remarks have you thought to speak 
an5^thing on the subject of the various companies in the Indian Ter- 
ritor}^ such as tribal development companies, like the Cherokee Oil and 
Gas Company, and other companies of that character, and as to the 
connection of the members of the Dawes Commission as stockholders 
and ofiicers and president, and as to the connection of the district 
attornej^s or other oflacials of the United States Government with ref- 
erence to those companies, and the transactions in that regard? 

Mr. Henshaw. I do not know anything about the organization of 
those companies nor the personnel of their stockholders of my own 
knowledge, and therefore would not want to make any statement for 
fear I might make one incorrectl}^ 

Mr. Robinson. Do you want at this time to give us what you might 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 153 

have with reference to the combinations among the coal companies to 
increase the price to the consumer of their coal ? 

Mr. Henshaw. Well, 1 only know about the same as the gentleman 
who preceded me, Senator Havens, said to j^ou j^esterda}^ that there is 
an organization there, or is said to be. 

Mr. Robinson. You need not repeat his statement unless 3^ou care 
to. It is in the record. 

Mr. Henshaw. Well, that is all I know about it. 

Mr. McGuiRE. B}^ what process of computation do you reach the 
conclusion that 3^ou have 600,000 white people there? 

Mr. Henshaw. I was going largely on the figures of the Dawes 
Commission and the receipts of the Post-Office Department. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Can 3^ou tell from the receipts of the Post-Office 
Department? 

Mr. Henshaw. No, sir; you can not tell except approximately from 
the receipts of the Post-Office Department. Where a country goes 
along with the same gradual increase in business and so on without any 
special booni, then the increase in the Post-Office Department is a 
fairly safe criterion, but if there are other conditions that intervene 
the receipts will not be. Now, the total receipts of the Post-Office 
Department for the year 1900, at the time the census was taken, were 
1203,496.60. For the fiscal 3^ear ending June 30, 1903, thev were 
1373,358.37, which only lacks 130,000 of being twice what itVas in 
1900. That is one way of estimating that our population is about 
three-quarters larger than it was at the time the census was taken in 
1900. 

Mr. McGuiRE. That figure might be affected, however, by various 
other facts. 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir; but 1 do not know of any other conditions 
such as 3^ou speak of that have existed in the Indian Territor3" to affect 
that figure. Now, 3'ou take opening up that southern country, where 
a million people, foreigners, were in there for a week, and all writing 
letters home, and of course that is readil3^ understood. 

Mr. McGuiRE. The increase of business in an3^ citv would bring 
about that increase in receipts? 

Mr. Henshaw\ Yes, sir; an increase of business in the city means 
increasing business in the post-office to take care of it, and an increase 
in business means an increase of people. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Perhaps so; not alwa3^s. 

Mr. Henshaw. Wh3% it is not a conclusive proposition, of course. 

Mr. Robinson. Now, take the Dawes Commission. 

Mr. Henshaw. The Dawes Commission perhaps has a better right 
to know more of the increase in population than an3" other official body 
in the Territoiy, and they place the whole population at 700,000. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Is it one of the duties of that Commission to take the 
census; and if so, what was the process and what was the result? 

Mr. Henshaw. Not at all. The3^ have no such duty; but the3^ do 
have the dut3^ of establishing sites where there are towns, and their 
agents and officers are in every town and eveiy localit3' in the Territoiy. 

Mr. McGuiRE. You sa3^ it is not one of their duties to take the 
census. Have those officers an3^ obligation b3^ which to base a report 
upon, an3^ sworn statement verified, or an3^thing of that kind? 

Mr. Henshaw. No, sir. 



154 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Robinson. I believe they did not swear to their statements when 
they took the enumeration of the United States. 

Mr. McGuiRE. There is a penalty upon a false enumeration. There 
was a penalty placed upon that. 

Mr. Henshaw. I now want to state our position on the statehood 
proposition as 1 believe our people feel about it. 

Mr. Lloyd. You mean the people of the Indian Territory, or the 
people of the locality where you live? 

Mr. Henshaw. The people of the Indian Territor}^ We do not 
want to stand in the wa}^ of Oklahoma obtaining statehood. If Okla- 
homa wants to get in as a State by herself, I do not believe there is a 
conscientious man in the Indian Territory that is going to raise his 
hand against it. I say honor forbids it. We want to stand in the 
way of no people. While, of course, from the commercial advantage 
and the geographical location it is the judgment of myself, and I sup- 
pose of most all others, that we ought to be one State, I am speaking 
now of the financial and social relations of the people of Oklahoma 
and Indian Territory; I also sa}^ that we should not be put in an 
embarrassing position, by the piecemeal provision in the McGuire 
bill, and I sa}^ here, and I believe it is the sentiment of every person 
in the Indian Territory, that there should be no provision made or any 
clause or any provision or declaration whatever that we should become 
an}^ part of the State of Oklahoma hereafter. 

Now, our people are there. The conditions are there, and the}" are 
no worse than they have been painted by the gentlemen from Okla- 
homa; they are no worse than thej^ have been represented b}^ them, 
and '' it is an accomplished fact;" we are there. And now the question 
before this committee is what you are going to do with us. We are 
opposed to that proposition with any piecemeal declaration whatever; 
we are unanimous upon that proposition with any declaration with ref- 
erence to us, if Oklahoma is to be admitted. If this committee wants 
to admit Oklahoma, and make a clean, clear bill admitting Oklahoma, 
there will not be a voice raised from the Indian Territory against it. 

Mr. RoDEY. Did not the people from Indian Territory have a big 
delegation here that cheered when the omnibus bill with that clause 
in it was defeated in the Senate ? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes; and we will cheer ever^^ time you defeat a bill 
with that clause in it, because if we are sensitive upon one proposition 
it is that. As I look at it, taking the political sentiment of the coun- 
try and the sentiment of Congress, waiving that proposition, can not 
Oklahoma go in now and create her State debts, and establish her pen- 
itentiary, and do all the acts she wants to do? Can 3^ou gentlemen say 
that she will not do it? Can you say that she will not when our con- 
ditions are removed, and we go into the State of Oklahoma practically 
without a mortgage upon a farm, with the Indians in the country with 
an average of six in the family and an average of $2,000 in cash for 
each member of the f amil}^ ? We will then go in with Oklahoma, and 
we have to pay her debts, whatever they may be, and whatever her 
legislature may see fit to contract for in establishing great institutions 
that you can not comprehend now, we have to come in and share that 
burden. I sa3% waiving all that, what is our political status? When- 
ever 3^ou commit the Congress of the United States to a policy by adopt- 
ing the piecemeal proposition that we ma}^ become a part of Oklahoma 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 155 

with or without our consent, you can say that 3'ou concUide from that 
that we shall not go into Oklahoma without our consent. 

Now, suppose 3'ou do that; I want to argue that proposition. Here 
is Congress committed to a polic}^ putting us in with Oklahoma only 
with our consent; we ma}' not want to consent to it. We ma}^ ask 
for something else. The}' will sa}^ to us, '' Well, we do not see proper 
to give an3'thing else now. You can go in with your consent or stay 
where 3'ou are." A declaration making us a part of Oklahoma with 
our consent is not a treaty, but ma}' be repealed at will by a subse- 
quent Congress. 

Mr. RoDEY. Would there have been no opposition to the omnibus 
bill last winter if it had had that clause left out of it 'i 

Mr. Henshaw. As I said before, it is the demand of ever}^ business 
man from a business standpoint, and from those that fear heavy taxa- 
tion in small States, that we should be one State. 

Our people would not oppose a bill making us a part of Oklahoma 
now, or when Oklahoma goes in according to the bill of Representa- 
tive Robinson or Senator Quay, that gives us time to establish all of 
our relations and settle up the Dawes Commission business, and enter 
upon statehood in the year 1906; in other words, be readv, do all the 
preliminary work, and be read}' at that time to enter upon statehood 
beginning in 1906. 

Mr. Powers. If I understand your position, it is this, that your 
people are willing to become a part of Oklahoma now. 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Powers. But that your people are not willing that there should 
be placed in a bill admitting Oklahoma as a State a proviso, irrevocably, 
that Congress may have the right, with the consent of the people of 
the Indian Territory, at some future time to make that a part of Okla- 
homa, thereby necessitating the submission of any bill to make it a 
part of Oklahoma to a vote of the people of the Indian Territory 
before it could be enacted if Congress ever sought to do iti That 
}'ou are not willing to have done? 

Mr. Henshaw. No, sir. 

Mr. Powers. And therefore if Congress Avill not adopt that as a 
whole now, and will not admit Oklahoma alone now, and does not feel 
like joining the Indian Territory now, then they must be kept out 
rather than have this provision on the bill that has been on every bill 
for ten years past. 

Mr. Henshaw. I do not know what has been on every bill for ten 
years, but we are certainly opposed to anything that would compro- 
mise the constitutional rights of 700,000 people to further favor 
Oklahoma. 

Mr. Powers. I can not see the injustice in that position. 

Mr. Henshaw. That would be less injustice, as I look at it, to Okla- 
homa to wait and come as provided in the Quay bill than it would to 
sacrifice our rights for the aggrandizement of Oklahoma. 

Mr. Powers. I can not see any injustice in it. 

Mr. Henshaav. That would be less injustice to Oklahoma than it 
would be to put us in with a proviso. What is the political effect of 
that proposition? This is far-reaching; you gentlemen may not be 
on this committee hereafter. You are dealing with subjects that will 
pass from your hands, and which we will have to meet from time to 



156 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

time. You are now making a map of this great country to stand for 
ages, and will you be guided by sentiment, b}^ the rights of 700,000 
people ? 

Mr. Powers. But if it is submitted to your people for a vote, your 
rights are protected. 

Mr. Henshaw. But suppose it is submitted to a vote and the people 
should refuse to go in with Oklahoma on a vote, Congress woukl say 
to us, stay where you are if you are too proud to be humiliated with 
your consent. 

Mr. Powers. Then, sir 

Mr. Henshaw. Then, sir — pardon me. 

Mr. Powers. Then I would assume that some future Congress in its 
wisdom would treat you with all fairness and either give you state- 
hood if you are able to have it, or give 3^ou a continuing Territorial 
government. 

Mr. Henshaw. I certainly think if the governor was Congress he 
would do just that wa}^; I have no doubt about it; but the time to 
protect us from the sentiment of future political influences is now. 
Political sentiments are not always directed within the lines of consti- 
tutional and moral justice. 

The Chairman. As I understand your position, you feel that a policy 
would have been established b}^ Congress which future Congresses 
would feel bound to conform to? 

Mr. Powers. What has that to do with it? 

The Chairman. I was simply stating his standpoint. 

Mr. Henshaw. In other words, it commits Congress to a policy, 
and now with us in our weakness, with the efforts and expenditures 
that it takes for us to come here 1,500 miles to impress upon Congress 
or a committee our wants, and with the probability of the different 
changes in Congress, it puts us simply in a living political grave. In 
other words, it simply makes a scapegoat of us for Congress to fight 
over for the next thirty years. 

Mr. Powers. Would you be in any different position than if Okla- 
homa was admitted alone without any provision? 

Mr. Henshaw. If Oklahoma was admitted alone we could come and 
say "W^e are ready for statehood," and then if there were those who 
did not want to give us statehood, and Congress committed to the pol- 
icy of making us a part of Oklahoma, they could simply give us this 
proposition, ''You can go with Oklahoma or stay out," and we could 
submit it to vote, and if rejected, the reply would come from Congress, 
"You can stay where you are," and there we would stay for years, 
until God only knows when. 

Now, suppose they would admit us without our consent. 

The Chairman. What is that ? 

Mr. Henshaw. You would annex us when in your wisdom you saw 
proper, then, without our consent. Then when Congress does do it it 
will be settled. It may be that our people would be so dissatisfied that 
they would not accept it if it w^as left to us; but put on a clause that 
Congress can do with us just what they choose and then our status is 
fixed. I say that of the two propositions, the provision that Congress 
should put us on when they please and as they please would be pref- 
erable to the proposition allowing us a vote, as this would only be a 
subterfuge to get votes for the bill, and would mean identically the 
same thing and no one would be deceived in the intention of Congress. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 157 

Mr. PowEKS. Better than if you consented? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Powers. You expect this committee to believe that that would 
be better? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Powers. That Congress might put you on at an^^ time without 
consultation would be better than a provision that they should put you 
on with your consent. A provision that they should put you on with- 
out your consent would be better? 

Mr. Henshaw, Of course our people would all be opposed to going 
in with Oklahoma after she formed her State government. Now, sup- 
pose a part of us were opposed and the other part was not opposed, 
ma3^be only one majority vote against it, that would keep us out indefi- 
nitel3^ That is my position on that. If the whole power was with 
Congress, as soon as they were ready the}^ could put us on. That is 
all there would be to it. Again, thi,s provision is not a treaty with our 
people and could be repealed by any subsequent Congress. Now, sup- 
pose that Oklahoma has two United States Senators here, when will 
they ever agree, with the confusion the}^ could stir up, for us to come 
in and disturb their political positions: and supposing we would be 
Democratic 

Mr. Powers. Well, we have a Republican Congress now, but it 
does not follow that we would always have one, and 1 can foresee that 
as calamities have befallen the country they may befall again. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. Henshaw. We are not in a position to wait for the change; the 
business people of the country out there are not interested in the 
political situation. What we want is something to better our condition, 
and we do not want to get in a position so as to become a scapegoat to 
fight over here. 

Mr. Wilson. You want to come in altogether or not at all? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes; make it a clean shave altogether, one way or 
the other. 

A Member. Regardless of politics? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes. Now, I was in the Indian Affairs Committee 
the other day when the chairman of the Dawes Commission was being 
examined by that committee with reference to conditions out there. 
Mr. Sherman, the chairman of that committee, asked him this ques- 
tion: " Would you have any objection to our putting a clause in our 
bill this year providing for the Dawes Commission to cease to exist 
after the end of the fiscal year 1905?" Mr. Biixb}^ answered, ''Our 
work will be completed, and there will be no objection to that clause 
in your bill." Now, what is there to do out there? The land of all 
the nations is practically allotted, or will be b}^ the end of this following 
year. The Quay bill, so far as that is concerned — and I do not remem- 
ber the provisions of the Robinson bill on that proposition — gives the 
State the right to tax its surplus lands, which could be sold if the 
Indians so desired — most of which can be sold b}^ the time this new 
statehood would go into operation under the bill. 

Then, there is the Indian, with from two to three thousand dollars 
per capita in the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations, and I do not remember 
what it is in the others, but it is a large amount, and I sa}'- that there 
could be no injustice under the treaties, these last of which do not pro- 
vide that the Government shall not tax their land for any purpose. 1 say 



158 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

there can be no injustice under that proposition whether they want to 
sell the land or keep it. The true conditions — ^if you could see the 
true conditions — are simple in so far as it affects the statehood propo- 
sition. 

Now, I believe 1 have nothing further to say unless there is some- 
thing that some of the committee desire to ask me. 

Mr. Robinson. What would be the condition if a Territorial govern- 
ment were to be provided for the Indian Territory and draw a com- 
parison upon the condition in case a State government is provided, on 
the subject of the taxation of this Indian land? 

Mr. Henshaw. I can not see any difference whatever. Now, I do 
not know the difference in cost between running a State government 
and a Territorial government. And as to the conditions in a State and 
Territorial government, they would be practicall}^ the same. 

Mr. Robinson. Extending that theory to the taxation of the lands 
under a Territorial or a State government 

Mr. Henshaw. It would be the same thing. 

Mr. Robinson. These Indian lands — the Indian lands inside the 
reserve ? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes; under the reserve. 

Mr. Robinson. They would be taxed the same under a Territorial or 
a State government. 

Mr. Wilson. Would it not have to be? 

Mr. Henshaw. If there was a provision in the bill. As it stands 
now, none of the Indian lands can be taxed; but they might put in a 
provision in the bill giving them a right to tax all but their home- 
steads. And the Indian, you remember, is the landlord of our coun- 
try; he has the land and the money in the Treasury, and we are 
paying him money for our town sites to-day, and he is the wealthiest 
citizen that we have to-day; and, except the full-bloods in the Indian 
Territory, they will average in intelligence with the people of any 
State. Now, that is a broad proposition. You may take the half- 
blood to-day who has been educated in the States in the schools Gov- 
ernor Powders spoke about, and you get a letter from one of those 
people and it will be without a single error, grammatical or otherwise, 
and it will be written in as beautiful a hand as you ever read. 

Mr. Robinson. From what source of taxation would 3^ou draw for 
the support of the Territorial government, or for the support of the 
State government, and will you give us some approximation as to the 
value of town sites? 

Mr. Henshaw. I could not give 3^ou the approximate value; but of 
course we have the 400 incorporated towns that would be taxable, and 
all the railroads, and then this 450,000 acres of land, and all sources 
of that kind, and 95 national banks or 50 private banks, and a vast lot 
of personal propert3^ The personal property in my town is assessed 
at $400,000 this year — that is, the personal property. The town in 
which I live is onty 3 years old, and the assessment this year is $400,000. 

Mr. Robinson. In a Territorial government who would pay the leg- 
islature and the governor, and what of the other officers who would be 
paid by the Territorial people? 

Mr. Henshaw. Well, of course, the Territory, as I understand it, 
would pay all Territorial officers, and the National Government would 
pay all appointive officers. However, this all depends upon the act 
creating the Territory. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 159 

Mr. McGuiRE. In the Territories ? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RoDEY. The National Government pays that expense, and it 
amounts to 130,000 in off years and $60,000 in administration years. 

Mr. Robinson. Who pays the legislature? 

Mr. McGuiKE. The National Government. 

Mr. Henshaw. I want your attention npon this one proposition. 
Now, suppose you should decide that it would not be proper to tax 
these surplus Indian lands, would it not be -better and cheaper for you, 
and better for us, and better for the Indian Territor^^ if you should 
take the position to say that you would appropriate on behalf of the 
Indian Territory, for which you have never given anything except to 
the Indian, say $50,000 a year or $100,000 a year to assist the Indian 
in the tax proposition that the Indian did not pay? In other words, 
that you would give the Indian that much in lieu of having him pay 
his taxes? Now, would not that be cheaper than to have to pay 
$500,000 a year, as you are now doing, for the Indian proposition in 
that country? That includes the courts and Dawes Commission. You 
appropriate $250,000 for the Dawes Commission now, and if you had 
a Territorial government would it not be better and more equitable and 
cheaper? Would it not be better to make that appropriation than to 
keep us out and to keep Oklahoma out, and still continue to appropri- 
ate $250,000 per year for the maintenance of courts? 

Mr. Wilson. The Government would pay $22,500 a year, as they 
do in my Territory, that is all. 

Mr. Henshaw. I do not know what it would be, but if they main- 
tain the courts as they are now the courts will cost them |3()0,000 a 
year. 

Mr. Powers. We might decide ver}^ easily to put you in, but if we 
decided upon anything we would like there would be some hope of 
getting it through. We must decide upon something that we can get 
enacted into law. 

Mr. Spalding. Referring back to the portion of the expense that 
the Federal Government pays in a Territory, is it not a fact that the 
Federal Government pays the secretary and the governor of the Ter- 
ritory and pays the salaries of the judges and legislators, for instance? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir; and that is all. 

Mr. Henshaw. And all the witnesses in cases that are pending? 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is only in Federal cases. 

Mr. Henshaw. They are all Federal cases in the Indian Territory. 

Mr. Lloyd. This is on a little different line. Suppose that this 
committee or Congress should conclude that Oklahoma ought to be 
admitted as a State by itself, then what kind of action do you think 
Congress should take with reference to the Indian Territory now? 

Mr. Henshaw. W^ell, they either ought to admit us as a State too, 
right now, or give us a Territorial form of government. There would 
be no reason why they should not admit us as a State in 1906. They 
could do it as consistently as they could give us a Territorial form of 
government, and of course a State could begin just as well, and we 
would be just as well prepared for it at that time as at an}^ time in the 
future. 

Mr. Lloyd. What do you say as to the proposition advocated b}^ 
some as to providing some kind of schools, and providing in addition 
to that for a Delegate from the Territory in Congress? 



160 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Henshaw. I was at that convention that made the proposition 
that we would ask for a Delegate instead of a Territorial government, 
and the motive that controlled that convention was, "Let us ask for 
something that the}^ can hardly afford to den}^ us. If we ask for a 
whole Territorial form of government, we will get nothing. Let us 
ask for the smaller thing that we can get, basing our claim on the leg- 
islation that we have wanted heretofore and have failed to get." Now, 
as to the S3^stem of public schools, I do not know of any means whereby 
a regular system of public schools could be inaugurated in that coun- 
try without the expenditure of a great deal of money, unless we had 
a Territorial or a State government, so as to make provisions for the 
location of buildings. Congress could provide the money to hire the 
teachers, but we have no houses for schools in the country. 

Mr. Powers. Are the Indians taxed for their schools now? 

Mr. Henshaw\ No, sir. 

Mr. PowEKS. How are the}^ paid for? 

Mr. Henshaw. They are paid for b}^ the Government. 

Mr. Powers. But it comes out of their mone}'? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. Now, the situation in that country is this. 
In almost ever}^ incorporated town we have a good system of free 
schools, and the Indians all have good schools, and the people that are 
without schools now are the people in the countr}^, and a great man}^ 
of them have gone in there, as you know, very rapidly, and children 
that moved from the States that had a partial education and are verg- 
ing upon manhood and womanhood, are those who are suffering, and 
their condition is very bad. But the cities and towns have as good 
schools as 3^ou have an3^where. I have the honor of serving upon our 
school board. I served upon a school board before I went to the 
Indian Territor}^, and have a pretty well defined idea of what the condi- 
tions are. We have spent about $6,000 in our town this year in 
arranging for schools, and we have informed everybody^ in the country 
living in proximity to our town that they could send their children to 
our schools, that the doors stood open; we have said '' We can not sit 
here and see j^our children growing up in ignorance within reach of 
our public schools." 

The Chairman. How do you sustain your schools in your town ? 

Mr. Henshaw. By the taxation of which I spoke. 

The Chairman. Within the municipality ? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes; within the town. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Is that b}^ Federal decision that 3^ou tax the munic- 
ipalities for school purposes? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes; that is a Federal law which put in force the 
laws of Arkansas over the Indian Territory for the organization of 
schools in municipalities. 

Mr. Robinson. How many of the population or how many of the 
school children would be left out in the enumerations ? 

Mr. Henshaw. It would probably be about 100,000. 

Mr. Lloyd. I may not have fully understood j^ou. Let us see if I 
do. Your people would prefer, first, to be made a part of a single 
State with Oklahoma. 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. At once? 

Mr. Henshaw. Well, that is what I said. Our people, I am sure — 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 161 

the business and conservative element without any political aspira- 
tions — I am sure believe that. 

Mr. Lloyd. If j^ou can not get that you want separate statehood 
for yourselves, beginning- on the 4th of March, 1906? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. And if you could not get that you think the next best 
thing would be a Territorial government? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. And if you could not get that j^ou would take a Dele- 
gate in Congress as the last thing? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes; and if we can not get that, Lord, anything! 

Mr. Thayer. Along the banks of the Washita River — is it popu- 
lated along there? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir; it is very denseh^ populated from one end 
of the Washita to the other. 

Mr. Thayer. What do the}^ raise there; is it a grain countr}^? 

Mr. Henshaw. It is agricultural. They raise all crops of the 
Southern States, and all crops that can be raised in the Northern States. 
It is the happv mean between the two. 

Mr. Thayer. Or is it wild? 

Mr. Henshaw. No, sir; it is all in cultivation. All the Washita 
bottom is in cultivation. Of course there will be places where there 
are heavy woods not cleared up yet; and then we have a black land, 
particularly down in our country, especiall}^ in the part I live in; it is 
between the Red River and the Washita River, and one of our farmers 
raised 85 bushels of oats to the acre, and another one raised 100 bush- 
els of oats per acre and other crops in similar proportion. 

Mr. Thayer. Do you have frequent rains there in the summer? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes; we have a sufficient moisture there to make 
good crops; when we have a drought there it is general over the coun- 
try. It is similar in rainfall to eastern Kansas, while Oklahoma is 
similar to western Kansas, which makes a great portion of their 
western part semiarid. 

Mr. Thayer. Are you more flourishing in that part of the Territory 
than they are to the northeast or in southwest here [indicating on 
map] ? Is that the best part of the Territor}- ? 

Mr. Henshaw. You understand we think that we have the best part 
of the Territory. 

Mr. Thayer. That is down here [indicating] ? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes, sir. This is the great cotton country here; in 
the Chickasaw Nation and the Choctaw Nation, it is a great cotton coun- 
try; and in the north and central parts, that also is a great country, but 
the cotton industry becomes of less importance as you go north toward 
the Kansas line. 

Mr. Wilson. It gets colder ? 

Mr. Henshaw. Yes. The wheat country and the corn country is in 
here [indicating on map]. We have the advantage of any Northern 
State in the world on that proposition. We can raise as much v^heat 
and corn as the}^ can an3'^where in the world, and those crops come in 
so that they are made and out of the way at the time the cotton comes 
in, and we make all the crops with the same number of teams and 
hands, etc., that the}^ have in the north. 

Mr. Thayer. What I wanted to know was whether the greatest 
argument against passing a bill for you here is not that j^ou would 

OKLA 11 



162 STATEHOOD FOK OKLAHOMA. 

take on the thrifty part of this country and leave the rest of it to take 
care of itself forever and aye. You say that right in here [indicating] 
is the essence of the whole thing, and you might, sooner or later, 
simply take that part and leave the rest. 

Mr. Lloyd. What population do you claim now? 

Mr. Henshaw. We claim now about 3,000 people. We had 2,000 
in 1902. 

Mr. Lloyd. Then 3^our assessments that you paid this year were 
really paid by that population of 2,000, for the schools this last year, 
where you contributed this 1600,000 for school purposes? 

Mr. Henshaw. That is this year, although the assessment would 
only apply to the 2,000 people. 

Mr. Lloyd. What do ^^ou mean by '' this year?" 

Mr. Henshaw. We collect our tax there in January. 

Mr. Lloyd. Oh, 3^es; in January. 

Mr. Henshaw. .It has been suggested that I make a statement in ref- 
erence to the resources of our countr}-, but that has been so thoroughly 
gone over that I will confine myself to some official figures. In 1890 
the Indian Territory had 3 national banks, with a total resource of 
$210,000. In 1900 she had 30 national banks, with resources amounting 
to $1,577,000. At the close of the fiscal 3^ear 1903 she had 87 national 
banks, with a total resource of $15,182,000. Since the close of the 
fiscal year 1903 there has been established 11 national banks, making 
the total number 98, with other applications now on file, and with a 
total resource of approximately^ $20,000,000. We have no law regu- 
lating private banks and trust companies, and there are 60 institu- 
tions of this kind doing business there, with an approximate resource 
of $10,000,000. 

Oklahoma with all her boasted greatness can make no better show- 
ing than this. 



Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives, 

Friday^ February -5, 1901^.. 

The committee met at 10.10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward L. Hamilton 
in the chair. 

The Chairman. The hearing this morning is on the subject of Okla- 
homa and Indian Territories. There is quite a delegation here from 
Oklahoma. Mr. Jones will indicate the order in which the speakers 
will address the committee. 

Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, it is the desire of the committee from 
Oklahoma that we hear first from Hon. C. G. Jones, the chairman of 
our committee, and in order that the committee maj^ know something 
about him I will state this: 

He was four times ma3^or of Oklahoma Cit3^, a city that is Demo- 
cratic, but he is a Republican. This is for the consolation of the 
Democratic members of the committee. Mr. Jones has been three 
times a member of the Oklahoma legislature from a Democratic dis- 
trict; he owns real estate in fourteen of the twent3'-six counties of the 
Territoiy of Oklahoma; he is president of several banks; is president 
of the packing house at Oklahoma City^, and during the past four 
3''ears has built 116 miles of railroad in the Territoiy. He is a promi- 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 163 

nent candidate for national committeeman on the Republican side from 
the Territory of Oklahoma. This for the purpose of giving j^ou 
information that not all of the people of the Territory who favor one 
State are Democrats. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES G. JONES, OF OKLAHOMA CITY. 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am 
very glad that the gentleman gave me a certificate of good character 
as I did not bring one from home and 1 was afraid I was going to have 
to make one for myself 

Mr. Lloyd. If you will notice, he stated nothing about you char- 
acter. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Jones. But the fact of being a good Republican 

Mr. Lloyd. That might go with a part of the committee but not all 
of it. 

Mr. Jones (continuing). And being elected from a Democratic dis- 
trict ought to be a certificate of good character. 

I want to relieve your minds, if 3^ou have it in mind that I am going 
to take up a long time in discussing the statehood matter. What the 
gentleman who has introduced me has said in regard to my position 
in Oklahoma is true, and I v^^ish to sav that whatever I may have there 
in a financial way I have made largely in Oklahoma in the last four- 
teen 3'ears. 

It has been said before the committee, as I understand it, that Okla- 
homa City, which has about 35,000 inhabitants, is for single statehood 
because it wants to get the capital, and that they think that we think 
we could have a better chance of getting the capital of the State vv^th 
one State than we could if there were two States. I want to say to 
you, gentlemen of the committee, that that is absolutely untrue. We 
are asking for one State for the business and commercial interests of 
the State. If you will give us one State surrounding Oklahoma and 
the Five Civilized Tribes, and leave the selection of the capital and pub- 
lic buildings and other matters of that kind to us, we will take care of 
it ourselves. 

It has been stated that 95 per cent, or a certain per cent — I think as 
much as 95 per cent — of the citizens of Oklahoma are for single state- 
hood 

Mr. RoDEY. I want to make a suggestion right here, if you please, 
and that is that 3^ou refer to joint statehood and separate statehood, as 
those terms are more clearh^ understood, and the terms double state- 
hood and single statehood do not so well express the meaning. 

Mr. Jones. Thank you; I will use the words joint statehood and 
separate statehood. 

I wish to state, gentlemen of the committee, that I am well acquainted 
in Oklahoma City, as the gentleman who introduced me indicated, and 
I know just two men inside the corporate limits of Oklahoma City that 
are for separate statehood, and if it were not that they are not here I 
would mention their names. And I understand that one of them has 
presented the matter before this committee. We want joint state- 
hood for a number of things, all of which I shall not undertake to dis- 
cuss before this committee. 

I understand that this matter has been very ably presented to you 
on both sides. I understand the facts and the figures have been pre- 



164 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

sented to 3^ou, and the reports of dij5*erent governors and of different 
officers of the Territoiy have also been presented, all of which will 
appear in 3^oiir record, and so I am sure the committee is entirely 
familiar with them. 

The eastern part of Oklahoma or Indian Territor}^ is where the coal 
lands lie; the western part is where the agricultural lands lie. We 
want what they have got and the^^ want what we have got. We do 
not want a State line running between the agricultural part of Okla- 
homa and the Indian Territory and the mineral or coal lands. You 
gentlemen know well enough what difficulties we would have with that 
condition of affairs. 

So far as saying that Oklahoma City and Shawnee are for single 
statehood or joint statehood because they want the capital at one or 
the other place, that is simpty not true. There is a committee here of 
nearly thirt}" from different parts of the Territory, and they can speak 
for themselves if 3^ou will give them one or two minutes apiece, and 
they will let you know about the condition of affairs in every part of 
the Territory. 

My facilities and opportunities for learning the wants of the people 
of Oklahoma are as extensive, if I do sa}^ it myself, as those of an}^ 
man in Oklahoma or Indian Territory. As has been stated, I have real 
estate I believe in l-I different counties out of 26. I have built rail- 
roads I think through 12 counties out of the 26. I come into contact 
with the people, with the farmers, with the business men, and also 
with the politicians, but I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman and gentle- 
men of the committee, when 3^ou get down to the business interests of 
Oklahoma, the commercial interests of Oklahoma, I sa3^ to 3^ou as 
candidl3" as I have ever made any statement in m3^ life that I believe 
75 per cent of the people of Oklahoma Territory, if it were left to a 
vote to-morrow, would vote for joint statehood. They^ would do it 
from a business standpoint. 

Now, I ma3^ be a little selfish -in this matter. I do not want two 
States down there. I do not want two States and to have to keep up 
two State governments, to go to work and build public buildings that 
must follow the establishment of the State, build capitol buildings, and 
as3^1ums, and penitentiaries, and public buildings which natural^ fol- 
low the establishment of a State; but wx want it, Mr. Chairman, so 
we can make one great and grand State out of Oklahoma and the 
Indian Territor3\ 

So far as the political situation in Oklahoma is concerned, I sa3^ to 
you, Mr. Chairman, that out of 26 counties there are 21 Democratic 
sheriffs, out of 26 counties there are 19 Democratic count3^ treasurers, 
out of 26 counties there are 17 counties where the majorit3^ of the 
county board is Democratic. We have in every Territorial election, 
with the exception of one, elected a Republican to represent us in the 
halls of Congress, so far as he could represent us. We do that like 
3^ou do in the States in 3"our different CongTessional districts. 

So far as the last Republican convention was concerned, I was a 
delegate to that convention, and that convention nominated our present 
Delegate to Congress. Another gentleman is here to-day^ who was at 
that convention and was a member of the committee on resolutions. I 
want to say to 3^ou candidly that if it had been left to that convention 
whether we should have single statehood or joint statehood that two- 
thirds of the delegates would have voted for joint statehood. Then, 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 165 

3^ou might sa}^ to me, " Why did you adopt the resolution that you 
adopted in that convention ? " It was adopted just to beat the Democrats, 
and that is what we did. Of course, that is a good deal like reading 
about infant baptism. You can read it one way in Genesis and read 
it another way in the Acts of the Apostles, and that is the wa}^ they 
read that resolution about statehood. I talked joint statehood in that 
campaign until I was hoarse, and I think 1 convinced the people in my 
section that that was what it meant. If we had not done it we would 
not have gotten 100 votes and Bird McGuire would not have been 
here to-day. 

Leave the political situation to us. No man has the authority, no 
man has the right, to predict what the immigration is going to be into 
Oklahoma when we are admitted as one State. If we are admitted as 
one State in the next year or the next two years — if it is possible we 
can become a State in that time — the population that we now have, of 
a million and a quarter, in my opinion, will double or treble. The lands 
in our Territory are now worth $10 to $50 an acre. Our land is worth 
and is selling for more than lands are in Texas, it is worth more and 
is selling for more than land in Arkansas, it is worth more and selling 
for more than most of the land in the Southern States. Consequently, 
the Democrats down there are not going to sell their land and move 
into Oklahoma and pa}^ double the amount for other lands there; but 
take the lands in Ohio and Indiana and Illinois and Nebraska and other 
States in that direction from us, and there you will find it is selling for 
from $75 to $150 an acre, and a lot of people in those States are going 
to sell their lands and come into Oklahoma, where the}^ can get as good, 
if not better, homes for much less money. Consequently, I say to 
you m}^ conviction in regard to this matter as a Republican is such 
that I hope to see the day, and I believe I will see it, if this committee 
will report a bill favorable to joint statehood for Oklahoma and Indian 
Territory, when we will send two United States Senators and two 
Representatives to Congress, and they will both be Republicans. 
[Applause and laughter.] 

My friend here [Mr. Doyle], who has no doubt presented this mat- 
ter very abl3% because he has the abilit}^ to do that, has been one of 
the stanch advocates of joint statehood, and no doubt he has tried to 
make j^ou believe that if these Territories are admitted as a State they 
will send two Democrats to Congress as Senators. Now, let us take 
care of the political situation down there. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this committee, I remember in 
Oklahoma City whole blocks, with 32 lots in each block and a house 
on ever}^ one of them, and not a Republican vote in the block. I 
remember, too. that Oklahoma went just as much Democratic as they 
wanted it to go; whatever they wanted it to go it went — they fixed it that 
way. But I want to say to you that that condition does not exist 
to-day. They have moved out and other fellows have moved in, and 
we are going to continue that way. And if you wdll give us joint 
statehood I say to j^ou that I believe we will have one of the greatest 
States of the West — one of the greatest States west of the Mississippi 
River. I think most of you are from the East, and so I will say noth- 
ing about the States east of the Mississippi; I do not want to tread 
on an3^body's toes 

The Chairman. We have some Democrats on the committee. 
[Laughter.] 



166 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Jones. I realize that. I am like the juryman was way down in 
Illinois, near Egypt — and I suspect that there are some Illinois gentle- 
men here — when the judge was giving instructions to the jury in refer- 
ence to certain matters. The judge said: *"' Gentlemen of the jury, I 
want you to distinctly understand that I want you to investigate very 
thoroughly this question of hog stealing down on the Dark Bend." An 
old juryman said: "Your Honor, I wish you would touch that question 
of hog stealing lightly, because," he sa3^s, "you are hurting feelings 
on this very jury." [Laughter.] 

So, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to be that way; I do not wish to 
hurt the feelings of any gentlemen here [laughter], but I want in a 
brief way and in a blunt way to explain the condition of things down 
there as I see it from a business standpoint and, incidentally, from a 
political standpoint. 

I never in my life — and I have been in the hotbed of Populism a 
great deal — I never saw a thorough, well-bred Populist, because we 
have never had one. Populism was born long enough ago to have 
grown to maturity in Kansas. Populism came about because they 
thought they had to pay too high taxes and they were getting in debt, 
and they could not lay it onto their neighbors and so, because the}^ 
could not lay it on anybody else they said " Let us lay it on the Gov- 
ernment." And those that were in control of Government affairs were 
held to be to blame. Consequentl}^ I remember that Kansas, from 
83,000 Republican, in two years went Popnlistic. Now we do not want 
that state of affairs down there, and for the sake of a million and a 
quarter of good people, and everybody's interest, for God's sake do 
not make it Populistic. Give it to us Republican if 3^ou can, and if 
you can not give it Republican, give it Democratic. 

Now, if you give us two States down there it will cut off the coal 
interests from the agricultural interests, and you will split us up into 
two little States — you will give us the expense of two State govern- 
ments, and I want to say to you that you will tax us out of existence, 
and instead of having propert}^ in 14 counties, as I have now, I will 
only want property in one, and mighty little of that. What we want 
is one State, a union of the Territories. We want it for a number of 
reasons. I sa}^ to you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that we want 
joint statehood. I see the faces of some gentlemen here, especially 
my friend to the left, who have been down in Oklahoma. I want to 
say to you that all the business interests, all the commercial interests, 
of Oklahoma are as well looked after in every detail, in every line of 
business, as they are looked after in any State of the Union. We have 
as good a school system; we have as good law and we enforce it. They 
do say, you know, that Oklahoma and Indian Territory is a hotbed of 
bad men. 

Now, then, it is true that we are sending a good many of them to 
the penitentiary, and we are fertilizing with a good man}^ of them. 
(Laughter.) And I want to say to you that if you will give us one State 
and let us have one grand and great State, so we can pa}^ the taxes to 
keep up the right form of government down there, wq will fertilize 
with the balance of them, or what we don't fertilize with we will send 
to the penitentiary and make them law-abiding citizens. 

That is what we are doing down there and are going to do. It is 
true that more men have been sent to the penitentiar}^ from our Terri- 
tor}^ for perjury than from any other of the States of the Union. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 167 

That is a good record, is it not? We do not let them do those things, 
and if they do we punish them. 

I am a Universalist in religion. I believe whenever a man violates 
the laws of nature he is punished for it; and it is the same way in 
Oklahoma, whenever an3^bod3^ violates the laws of our Territory we 
punish him. 

Take the Indian Territor}^ — and I will close now in a moment — and 
the}" tell 3^ou that along the border lines the courts are filled with 
criminals. If you will give Indian Territory courts and constables as 
3^ou have given to Oklahoma, so that they can control the minor 
oii'enses against the law, there will no longer be this cause for com- 
plaint in this respect 

Mr. Wilson. In other words, give them a chance. 

Mr. Jones. That is what we want — a chance. As the old lad}" said, 
give us a dog's chance, and I will sa3^ to 3"ou that we will do the bal- 
ance of it. 

Mr. Lloyd. You spoke a while ago of being familiar with the senti- 
ment in the Territory. Without referring to an}" witness, it has been 
intimated that the sentiment in favor of single statehood is confined to 
three or four counties around Oklahoma Cit3^ What do 3"ou think 
about the sentiment of the masses of the people at Guthrie, Enid, 
Kingfisher, Elreno, Lawton, and places of that kind? 

Mr. Jones. I will commence at Greer Count3% the county farthest 
west. There is a gentleman here from that part of the Territor3", and 
I will appeal to him and ask him if he believes that he can take a seine 
and go through that county and gather in a dozen men who are for 
double statehood? 

Mr. Chenowith. You could not get one. 

Mr. Lloyd. What is the principal town in Greer Count3"? 

Mr. Jones. The count3^ seat is Mangum. One of the principal towns 
is Leger, and there is Olustee and a number of others. We built a 
railroad down through Greer County in the last two 3"ears. Ma3^be 
that had some influence in changing their sentiment. 

Now, I desire to state to 3^ou, gentlemen, that I do not want to be 
accused of doing the same thing that others have been accused of, and 
that is of tr3dng to secure a particular kind of statehood for town rea- 
sons. I would not charge before this committee that the}^ seek sepa- 
rate statehood so that Guthrie or Enid could have a chance at the 
capitol and other buildings. If I were on the outside I would tell 3"ou 
that that is the onh" reason they have, in my judgment, for wanting 
separate statehood. I have been in the various count3" seats of Okla- 
homa, and I have had the misfortune of being in the courts. I was 
never vaccinated for a lawyer and I am not a lawyer; I am a farmer, 
although, on the side, I have built railroads. 

But, as I have said, I have been in the courts and around the count3^ 
seats, and I have talked to jurymen. In that countr3^, 3"ou know, the 
judge will permit 3"ou to take the jur3" out to view the land. Of course 
3"ou have instructions not to talk to the jurv about an3"thing connected 
with the case. So 3"ou have to talk with them about something else, 
and I alwa3"s talk to them about statehood, because that is so far awa3" 
from anything to do with the case that a man can not possibh" be in 
contempt of court. I make this statement with no fear of successful 
contradiction: That 90 per cent of the farmers who till the soil and b3" 
their labor produce wealth from the land of our Territory — 90 per cent 



168 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

of the men wko by their labor and their energy are making a prosper- 
ous community out there — are for the union of the two Territories, 
regardless of counties, outside of Logan County and possibly Kingfisher 
County. 

Mr. Lloyd. Logan County has Guthrie in it? 

Mr. Jones. Yes; that is the capital. 

Here is Mr. Davis, from Lawton, and here are gentlemen from other 
parts of the Territor}^ and from the Indian Territory who will tell you 
briefly just how the things are in every part of the Territory. 

Referring again, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, to the statement that 
the only reason we are for the union of the two Territories is because 
we want the capital, I want to say that if such a thing could be done 
I think the people of Oklahoma City would sign an ironclad contract 
that if 3' ou will give us one State we will never make any application 
for the capital. We want one State for business, for commercial 
reasons. 

The substantial business men of the Territory want one State. 
They are men who are doing business in substantial three and four 
stor}" brick buildings, business buildings that would be a credit to smj 
community. They are the men that are asking for this, the men that 
represent the capital, not the men who come here because they think 
that there may be a seat in the United States Senate which is cold and 
which is waiting for them to Avarm. I repeat that we want this for 
business and commercial reasons. And then let us take care of the 
question of whom we will send to warm that seat in the Senate — and 
it won't be a fellow who is for separate statehood, either. At least, 
that is my idea; of course I have no authorit}' to say that. We have 
every requirement necessary to take care of our own business down 
there if 3^ou will permit us to do it. 

So far as all these minor matters are concerned, such as locating the 
courts and all that, I hope you gentlemen will do as jouy judgment 
dictates is the best polic3^ and we shall be contented; but above all 
things I wish to appeal to you gentlemen of this committee to keep in 
mind that we are a million and a quarter of as good American people 
as ever lived; we are from Illinois and Indiana and Ohio, and Penn- 
sylvania and New York — from almost every State in the Union. Why 
should we be kept out of the Union? We are blood of 3^our blood and 
flesh of 3^our flesh; we are from joav country, from your States; we 
are the sons and daughters of the old people lying possibl}^ in their 
graves in those States, and we come appealing to you gentlemen to 
give us one state, and give it to us just as quick as you think it is pos- 
sible to do it. 

Now, if there are any questions slbj gentlemen wish to ask me, I 
will be glad to try to answer them to the best of my ability. 

Mr. Robinson. Briefl3^ I would like to have your judgment of the 
McGuire bill, if you are familiar with it. 

Mr. Jones. With all due respect to our Representative, I sa3' to 
3^ou, gentlemen of the committee, that we would much prefer the Qua3^ 
bill. If we could have two amendments to that bill we would prefer 
that to the McGuire bill. We think it is in keeping with the demands 
and wants and needs of the people down there. 

A Member. What about the Robinson bill? 

Mr. Jones. The Robinson bill is, of course, much the same as the 
Quay bill, but we feel that the Quay bill could easily be amended, or 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 169 

that the tAvo bills (the Quay bill and the Eobinson bill) could be taken 
and a bill prepared from them to lit all the conditions of affairs in 
Oklahoma, and we feel that that is what we would like to have. 

Mr. RoDEY. There are two characteristics of the Qua}' bill — and I 
think some of them are in the Robinson bill — which are, first, as to 
that Senator matter, and, second, as to the donations for schools. 

Mr. JoxES. As to the Senator, of course I would like to have it put 
in there that one of them should be a Scotch-Irishman [laughter], but 
I do not suppose you would do that; and Dennis Flynn would like you 
to leave out the Scotch business and leave it Irish: and here is m}^ 
friend Doyle who would not object to that either. I think he would 
like to read that one shall be of Irish descent. That matter is with 
you, gentlemen, and 3^ou know whether it is constitutional for you to 
sav what kind of a Senator we shall have. We feel that we ought to 
have a say about that ourselves — as to Avhat nationality he shall be. 
We want the Senator to be one who will look to the interests of Okla- 
homa and to the interests of this great country of ours in the United 
States Senate. We have nothing to say whether he shall be an Indian 
or of Indian blood; that is with you. If you want it so, if you will 
give us joint statehood with that in there, then for God's sake give it 
to us that way; but do as 3'ou please about that. 

Mr. Lloyd. There is one other question that Ave want to ask about 
that is embraced in the.McGuire bill, and that provides for the admis- 
sion of Indian Territory by piecemeal. 

Mr. Jones. We Oklahoma fellows are not for piecemealing any- 
thing. We like to do everything wholesale and bodih'; that is what 
we want. We want to know what we are going to get. We feel this 
way, that if you can so arrange it to pass this bill — I am not pre- 
dicting, or dictating, or guessing; I am not a prophet or a son of a 
prophet — but I just want to suggest that if you pass this statehood 
bill for a union of the two States this session of Congress, that by the 
time we have our constitutional convention and all the other arrange- 
ments made, 1906 will be here, and then all the questions with the 
Indian tribes will have been settled . That would be my idea about it, 
and then we would know what we are getting. 

We are awfully afraid to go on with this piecemeal business for fear 
that some of you gentlemen will not be here when that piecemeal is 
added, and then whoever is here will forget what you wanted to do, 
because it might be possible that there would be a change of affairs in 
the Senate and House of Representatives and the Administration. I 
am like the old fellow who wanted a man to imagine he was a colored 
man, and the man said *' What is the use of imagining it, because 3'ou 
ain't and never will be? '' So I feel like that. I don't think that it is 
likeh' or that it ever will be, but of course it is possible. 

Now, in regard to this school matter, it is in the record as to what 
school facilities and school needs we have down there. The Qua}' bill 
provides for an appropriation of §10,000,000 to offset our school lands 
for the benefit of the Indians and the Five Civilized Tribes. As I 
remember, in 1818 when Illinois was admitted as a State, and from 
that time to this, there has never been a State admitted into this Union 
unless the school children were provided with a school fund. I do not 
know, I have no license, and these separate statehood fellows haven't 
an}' license to say, that the United States is not going to make some 
provision for the school children in the Indian Territory, and with an 



170 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

appropriation of $10,000,000, leaving it in the Treasury at 5 per cent 
interest, that will care for the school question down there all right, 
which is important and ought to be done. 

1 forgot to tell 3^ou, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, another thing 
that 1 intended to say, and that is, that I am chairman of the single 
statehood of Oklahoma and Indian Territory executive committee, 
composed of ten members from Indian Territory and ten from Okla- 
homa. I want to say to you that I have written over 3,000 letters in 
regard to this question, and I have received but one letter from one 
man who said that he was not in sympathy with us in our joint state- 
hood movement. They all write that they are with us for single 
statehood and an34hing they con do in their communities they are 
willing and ready to do. 

Mr. Humphry. You mean joint statehood? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir; joint statehood. 

Now, gentlemen, in behalf of all these people I want to thank you 
for allowing our committee the privilege of coming before 3^ou and in 
a brief way and in a blunt way stating to you what we want and the 
reasons we want it. 

The next gentleman to speak will be Mr. Beard, a banker and real 
estate man. He is vice-president of the First National Bank of 
Shawnee. 

The Chairman. We have been very much interested in hearing you, 
Mr. Jones, and in view of the fact that such a large number of gen- 
tlemen from Oklahoma are appearing before us we are glad to have 
impressed upon us the strong sentiment in favor of truth in Oklahoma, 
which 3^ou have impressed upon us. 

STATEMENT OF MR. H. G. BEARD. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I desire to state 
that 1 was elected one of four delegates at a joint State convention 
which was held at Shawnee last June by the two Territories. This 
convention was the largest ever held in Oklahoma. We had over 
3,000 people present, and we had no city hall in the city large enough 
to hold all the delegates. Therefore we sent to Kansas City and 
hired a tent and held the convention in a park. 1 want to say to 3^ou 
that that was the most enthusiastic convention that has ever been held 
in Oklahoma or Indian Territory b}^ any party or organization. 

The Chairman. Where was that held? 

Mr. Beard. At Shawnee last June, in 1903. I am one of the four 
delegates selected to come here to Washington to present this matter 
to 3^ou gentlemen. 

I know a great man}^ of the facts and statistics have already been 
presented to you by a number of gentlemen who have appeared before 
the committee, and it is not necessary for me to go over those matters. 
I simply want to say that a large majority of the people in Oklahoma 
and Indian Territory are in favor of joint statehood. I am acquainted 
with people all over the Indian Territory and Oklahoma, and I 
myself own property in a great many of the towns of Indian Terri- 
tory as well as Oklahoma. I am like Mr. Jones in one respect: When 
I wxnt to Oklahoma, I did not have anything, and whatever I have 
accumulated I have accumulated in the last twelve years. 

1 want to say to you gentlemen that the business interests of the two 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 171 

Territories demand that we be put under one joint State government. 
1 see no reason wh}^ it should be dela3^ed beyond this Congress. Of 
course after a statehood bill is passed it will be necessary for us to 
hold a State convention, and after the State convention has been held 
we will then have to hold an election to adopt a constitution, and then 
officers have to be elected. After we have ourselves adopted the con- 
stitution it has got to be adopted by Congress. All this takes time, 
and by the time we have done that the limitations in regard to these 
tribal governments will have expired, and there is no reason that we 
can see wli}^ this Congress should not pass a statehood bill. 

There is no reason why a million and a quarter people should not 
have representation in this Congress. We have been living down 
there for the last fourteen years, or a great many of us have been 
there that long. Our delegate we have had in Congress has had no 
vote in this body, and the people of Indian Territory have had no rep- 
resentation whatever. The Indian Territory has at this time almost 
285,000 children of school age. About 100,000 of those have been 
provided with schools. They are the children who live in the organized 
cities. There are about 185,000 of those school children that have no 
school facilities whatever. It has been said that there is a greater 
percentage of illiteracy in Indian Territory than in any other part of 
the United States. Perhaps that is true. But is this Congress going 
on and increase that percentage of illiterac}^? There is no reason wh}^ 
those people should not have school facilities and should not have 
them immediately. 

But I want to say this, that our people are prett}^ generall}" favor- 
able to the Qnsiy bill. The Robinson bill is also a good bill. Either 
of those bills, with a ver}^ few amendments, will be acceptable to our 
people. We have not paid very much attention to the McGuire bill, 
because we did not want the State lines to run as provided in that bill. 
And, another thing, there are some things in that bill in regard to the 
school lands which the majority of the j^eople do not approve of. And 
it seems to me that another thing to kill this separate statehood idea 
is the fact of the zigzag line that runs between Oklahoma Territor}^ 
and the Indian Territor}^ With Oklahoma and the Indian Territory 
combined we have got all of the wealth in mineral and agricultural 
lands that almost any of the other Central States have, and by having 
those Territories combined under one government we believe we can 
regulate railroad rates with reference to coal and such other products 
as that which we have to transfer from one part of the Territorj^ to 
another, and for which we are now pa3dng enormous rates of freight. 

I will not take up an}" more of your time, and will quit right here. 

Mr. Thayer. You sa}^ — and I presume 3^ou are well informed, 
because you have been there twelve or fourteen years 

A Bystander. Don't make it over fourteen years, because if 3^ou do 
3^ou will make him a ''sooner." 

Mr. Thayer (continuing). And so I suppose you know whereof j'ou 
speak — that a majority of the people of Oklahoma and Indian Terri- 
tory are in favor of this single statehood for the two Territories. Now, 
the representative from Oklahama, whom I will assume to be equall}^ 
well informed and intelligent, sa3"s that a majorit}^ of the people want 
a single State. What do you suppose a person living in the East, and 
knowing nothing about it except what information he gets from the 
statements he hears here, is to conclude? 



172 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Beard. Well, I want to sa}^ this: That you will find almost all 
the people in Indian Territory and Oklahoma who hold office are in 
favor of separate or no statehood; and outside of that the people who 
do not hold office, they are almost unanimous in favor of joint state- 
hood. If you will go into the offices that are filled b}^ appointment by 
the Government, almost all of the Territorial offices, and also the judi- 
ciary, you will find that the officeholders are almost unanimous in favor 
of separate statehood or no statehood. Of course this is a condition that 
most of you can readily understand. Those gentlemen are holding 
their offices and drawing their salaries, and rather than have a change, 
under which they might not be able to hold their offices, they would 
rather that the conditions would remain as they are. 

Mr. Thayer. Has there been any attempt there to get any popular 
expression of the will of the people by a vote? 

Mr. Beard. No, sir; there has not been. 

Mr. Thayer. You keep coming here year after year trying to get 
under cover, and it occurs to me that it would be well for you people 
there to decide b}^ some popular vote whether j^ou want double or 
single statehood, and not have one well-informed man come here and 
tell the committee that everybody out there is in favor of joint state- 
hood and then another equally well-informed man, perhaps, come 
here and tell the committee that the sentiment of the people is nothing 
of the kind. 

Mr. Beard. It is pretty w^ell conceded in the United States that 
almost all of the people have wanted statehood in all the Territories 
that have been admitted so far, and there has never been a Territory 
admitted to the Union that had as large population as either Indian 
Territory or Oklahoma has at this time. There is no doubt about the 
people wanting statehood, except those people who are holding the 
offices. I venture to sa}^ j^ou can go to almost any person holding- 
office by appointment and he will either be for the conditions remain- 
ing as they are or for separate statehood, thinking his chances will be 
better under those conditions than if we had single statehood. I have 
been all over both of the Territories, and my business has taken me to 
almost half of the towns of any size in the two Territories, and within 
the past two years I have talked to people all over them, and invaria- 
bly the business element of all these communities has expressed itself 
in favor of single statehood. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions, gentlemen of the 
committee? 

Mr. Jones. I next w^ish to introduce Mr. Clarence Douglas, from 
Muscogee. 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen 

The Chairman. Please give your name, residence, and occupation. 

STATEMENT OF MR. CLARENCE DOUGLAS. 

Mr. Douglas. I am a newspaper man of Muscogee, Ind. T, ; pub- 
lisher and editor of the Muscogee Phoenix. 

Mr. Lloyd. How long have you lived in the Territory? 

Mr. Douglas. About fourteen years, although not all of that time 
in Muscogee. 

I believe it will not be necessary at this stage of the proceedings to 
attempt to thrash out with you, from a statistical standpoint or the 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 178 

standpoint of the resources of the two Territories, the fact that they 
have those things necessary to go to make up a great State. There has 
no doubt been a great deal more said about the resources of Oklahoma 
than of the resources of Indian Territory. In my judgment, perhaps 
more could be said in regard to Indian Territory. In the Chickasaw 
Nation, in the southwestern part of the Territory, are the asphalt 
beds and cement beds and the magnificent agricultural country. In 
the Choctaw Nation they have the granite and the coal and a very 
large body of virgin pine timber land. In the Cherokee Nation there 
is a spur of the flint hills running down from the Ozark Mountains, 
carrying zinc and lead and other minerals which are found in south- 
western Missouri. The Creek and Seminole nations comprise lands 
which are largely agricultural, and in that part of the Territory we 
also find gas and oil. The resources of Indian Territory are not 
excelled by Oklahoma or any State or Territor}^ in the Southwest. 

The question has been often asked, how does a man get his informa- 
tion in regard to the sentiment of the people down there? I get mine 
very largely in two wa3^s. One is from going to conventions and travel- 
ing around, the other is from my exchange table. There is not a paper 
printed in the Territory that does not come to my exchange table, and 
I read all the papers carefully, and keep in touch with the sentiment 
of the country and the people. There are two papers in the Territory 
not for joint statehood — only two. Except one paper at Tahlequah 
and one at Atoka, in the Choctaw Nation, the press of the Territor}^ 
is practically a unit in favor of joint statehood. 

In conventions held at Oklahoma City and Shawnee we packed a 
house as large as we could get, and packed tents, the largest we could 
get, with joint statehood delegates. The}^ attempted to hold a double 
statehood convention, and only 15 or 20 responded; that was as many 
as they could muster. 

A BYSTANDER. Tweuty-two was the most they could get. 

Mr. Douglas. I think that evidences the fact that the sentiment in 
that country is for joint statehood. 

I want to make this statement in regard to the amalgamation or 
absorption process: We of the Indian Territory have passed on this 
in convention — that we are for you and with yon on joint statehood on 
terms of absolute equalit}^, man for man from the Indian Territory, 
man for man in the constitutional convention, building for building, 
and Congressman for Congressman. We desire to go in, no longer as 
political orphans as we have been, but to go in with that heritage as 
American citizens to which we believe we are entitled. 

I believe that summarizes the sentiment of the people of my 
Territory. 

Mr. Thayer. How many papers are there in the Territory? You 
speak of there being two against joint statehood. 

Mr. Douglas. They var}^, because they are put in often and fail. 
Probably at this time there are between 90 and 100 daily, weekly, and 
monthly papers in the Territory. There are 1 3 dailies. 

Mr. Thayer. Mr. Hearst has no paper there, has he? 

Mr. Douglas. No, sir. I think, however, he has had his eye on one 
at South McAlester. 

Mr. Jones. I next wish to introduce Mr. D. C. Lewis, of Oklahoma 
City. 



174 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 



STATEMENT OF MR. D. C. LEWIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 
OKLAHOMA CITY. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I desire first to 
answer the question that was propounded by one member of your 
committee, as to why we do not take steps to get some expression 
from our people as to what kind of statehood we want, whether we 
want one State or two. That can be answered this way: That the 
question of admission of States into the Union is not a question of 
right, but it is a question that depends on the will or wish of Congress. 
And another answer to that is that it is a business proposition and not 
one of the expression or wish of our people; it is more of a business 
proposition. And, further, to answer this question, I might follow 
out or give you a little Oklahoma history that would more fully 
answer the inquir3^ 

Last night after I retired I took up the question — the histor}^ of the 
various statehood conventions that have been held in Oklahoma—in 
order that you might have a history of our movements and what we 
have done in the past. 

Oklahoma Territory was opened up to settlement on the 22d of 
April, 1899. The Territory as then opened was made up of five 
counties — Payne, Logan, Kingfisher, Canadian, Oklahoma, and Cleve- 
land. During that first year there was held a statehood convention, 
and there were many people present. There were man}^ present then 
who are advocates of the two-State idea at the present time who then 
advocated the creation of a State out of those five counties, and who 
wanted to see us follow the course which was pursued by California 
and b}^ Tennessee and attempted by Idaho, although in the latter case 
it failed. That course was to elect United States Senators and come 
down here and knock for admission. But the judgment of those who 
felt that Oklahoma and the Indian Territory" ought to be included ulti- 
mate l}^ in one State prevailed, and they simply passed a few compli- 
mentary resolutions with reference to the townspeople where they met 
and adjourned and went home. 

The following year, in 1890, there was a statehood convention held 
in Oklahoma City in which people of all political parties participated. 
A fight came up there in that convention as to whether we would 
resolve in favor of the creation of two States or of one State. The 
argument lasted one afternoon and one night. When the vote was 
taken the people voted for the union of Oklahoma and Indian Terri- 
tory in one State. 

Every year from the opening of Oklahoma Territory to settlement, 
from 1889 until this last summer, there has been a statehood conven- 
tion held either in Oklahoma or in the Indian Territory. In 1900 the 
first inter-Territorial convention was held at South McAlester, at 
which nearly all of the counties were represented. 

A Member. From both Territories? 

Mr. Lewis. From both Territories. 

The Chairman. Of course there are no counties in Indian Territory. 

Mr. Lewis. No, sir; most of the counties in Oklahoma were repre- 
sented, and representatives were there from the Five Civilized Tribes. 

At that convention resolutions were passed favoring the union of 
the Territories. The sentiment of South McAlester was so strongly 
in favor of two States that we found it difficult to find accommoda- 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. l75 

tions, we found it difficult to get lodging places or places to eat. 
The}^ did not want us. They looked upon us somewhat as a hoard of 
grasshoppers coming down upon them to destro}^ their interests and 
their future wealth as well as their prospects. The following year 
there was a convention held at Muscogee, a very large and enthusiastic 
convention. 

Mr. Jones. That was in 1901. 

Mr. Lewis. In 1901. At that convention ex-Governor Barnes, 
who was appointed governor of Oklahoma by President McKinley, 
was there and participated. Hon. Frank Greer, editor of the State 
Capital, the leading Republican paper in the Territory" of Oklahoma, 
was also there, and he was the chairman of the committee on resolu- 
tions. Your humble servant was also there, and Republicans and 
Democrats from ever}^ portion of Oklahoma and every portion of 
the Indian Territory were there participating in that convention. 
After that, in the same year, there was another convention held at 
Claremore, Ind. T., quite largely participated in, and this last year 
there was a convention at Oklahoma City 

A Member. I beg your pardon, but was that an interterritorial 
convention ? 

Mr. Lewis. Yes; that was an interterritorial convention. Last 
3^ear, 1903, there was an interterritorial convention held at Oklahoma 
City, in which there was an outpouring of people. They heard and 
feared that the Flynn bill then pending before Congress, which had 
features in it very similar to the McGuire bill, would pass. People 
came from every portion of Indian Territory and every portion of 
Oklahoma to that convention, and when I state to you, gentlemen, that 
more than 3,000 people were present at that convention I tell you 
that which is true. 

This last summer there was a convention called for the purpose of 
advocating the idea of holding a constitutional convention, but better 
judgment prevailed, and they passed resolutions again in favor of the 
creation of one State. That was also an interterritorial convention. 

Thus 3^ou have a brief outline of this movement in Oklahoma and 
Indian Territory. I want to say here that while there are at the pres- 
ent time two statehood committees in the Territorv of Oklahoma, yet 
up to the present time, from the time the Territory of Oklahoma was 
opened to settlement, there never has been a convention held in Okla- 
homa, whether called for the purpose of giving expression to the one- 
statehood idea or for two States, that has ever passed a resolution for 
the creation of two States. The nearest to that that was ever done 
was a resolution passed b}^ a convention held at Guthrie, where they 
resolved in favor of the creation of a State for Oklahoma with such 
boundaries as Congress in its wisdom might deem proper to give. 
That is the nearest to any resolution at any convention ever held in 
Oklahoma in favor of double statehood. 

So much for the histor}'^ of this movement; that ought to shed some 
light upon this question. 

Mr. Lloyd. In this connection you said that when you went to a 
certain place — South McAlester, I think it was — at one time that the 
sentiment was so ver}- strong against it that you could hardly find 
lodging or accommodations? 

Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do vou know what that sentiment is to-dav ? 



176 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Lewis. There are two gentlemen here from South McAlester, 
Mr. Robbins, the editor of the Republican newspaper there, and 
Judge T. C. Humphr}", a law3"er, asking for the union of Oklahoma 
and the Indian Territory. 

The town held a mass meeting a few nights before they came here 
and chose them on this committee to come here, and at that meeting 
the question came up for discussion, and it was the sentiment of the 
people in South McAlester that it was the proper thing to do to create 
one State out of these two Territories. These gentlemen, as 1 baA^e 
said, are present, and will be glad to answer that question as to what 
the sentiment there is. The}^ were there and participated in that 
meeting. 

Mr. Robinson. I desire to submit a matter to Mr. Lewis. We had 
a gentleman here, Hon. Sidne}^ Clark. He appeared before this com- 
mittee, and went over the matter of the business and commercial 
exigencies of the Territor}^ as bearing upon the question of joint or 
single statehood, and he generall}^ roamed the field of facts in refer- 
ence to the two Territories. Was he at Ardmore, Ind. T., at a con- 
vention held for the purpose of discussing these various purposes in 
1892, do you know? 

Mr. Lewis. I am prepared to answer that. 

Mr, Robinson. If 3^ou will answer it briefly I will follow it with 
another question. 

Mr. Lewis. Hon. Sidney Clark went to Ardmore, Ind. T., and 
delivered an address to the people on December 20, 1892, and I was 
present and listened to that address and kept his speech, and at the 
time I delivered an address before the Trans-Mississippi Commercial 
Congress held at Wichita, Kans., June 2, 1889 [the speaker evidentl}" 
meant 1899], Mr. Clark was there in that convention and 1 followed 
him with my address and he made the remarks 3^ou have before you 
here, and I quoted from them. 

The Chairman. You mean 1899, do 3^ou not? 

Mr. Lewis. No, sir; it was 1892 that he made that address. 

Mr. Robinson. Did he speak as follows — and the reporter need not 
take this, as I have this here in print and will give it to him 

The Chairman. Mr. Lewis, do you not mean 1902? 

Mr. Lewis. No; that was in the early dsij^. It was after the open- 
ing of Oklahoma to settlement. Our country was opened in 1889, and 
he Avas there in 1892. 

Mr. Lloyd. And when was it you quoted from him? 

Mr. Lewis. I quoted from bim in 1899. 

Mr. Robinson. And quoted as follows, and is this a correct statement 
of what he said at Ardmore 

Mr. Lewis. That was not a convention; it was simply a meeting. 

Mr. Robinson. Mr. Clark is reported to have said this: 

Nor is there any good reason why the two Territories should be separated in 
statehood. Every geographical and material consideration forbids the separation. 

Population, wealth, and natural resources, formed into one grand total, will be 
more powerful in influence, more potent for good, more effective in government than 
a divided jurisdiction. My judgment is that if the Territory of Oklahoma, as at 
present organized, could become a State to-day half a generation would pass away 
before the tribal oligarchies of the five tribes would be made to yield the auto- 
cratic power they now possess. "In union there is strength." 

I know it has been said that there should be two States formed out of this domain. 
It has also been proposed that an Indian State be created out of the five tribes. As 
I have said elsew^here, so I say here, that this proposition is preposterous and con- 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHO:vrA. 177 

trary to the genius of our free institutions. This is not a Government of distinct 
races or of States founded upon class and caste. Equality of citizenship is the pride 
and glory of our republican system. The Indian, like the emigrant from the Old 
World, has only to take the oath of allegiance to the Government of the L^nited States 
to become one of its citizens and be i^rotected by its flag. 

The reasons why we should unitedly demand of Congress immediate statehood 
far outweigh all possible objections. 

They appeal not only to the pride and self-respect of all of our people, but to every 
consideration affecting the mat^-rial, moral, educational, and religious welfare of 
this great section of the country. 

To this great work, to the blending together of the two Territories and in the 
forming of one grand imperial commonwealth, all good citizens should be willing to 
exert their most earnest efforts. 

Mr. Lewis. Those were the words of Mr. Clark. And I want to 
say to you further that at the first statehood convention ever held in 
the Territory' of Oklahoma, held at Oklahoma City, Mr. Clark was 
the champion at that time of the one-State movement. 

The Chairman. That was in 1890? 

Mr. Lewis. That was the second 3'ear after the opening of Okla- 
homa to settlement. And at that meeting, in 1S90, Mr. Clark, the 
champion of the cause of one State, raised his arms and stated to that 
convention that he woidd prefer that his right arm should wither and 
fall helpless by his side than to see two States made out of Oklahoma 
and Indian Territory, and the delegates present cheered him to the 
echo. Now, upon that question as to where Mr. Clark stood, I might 
give you some interesting information in reference to the kaleidoscopic 
changes that have taken place among the people of Oklahoma upon 
that question. I would not like to say. and it would be unfair to say. in 
reference to our present delegate, that prior to his election he vras the 
advocate of one State, and I will not make that statement — I will leave 
it to him to state. But we know whereof we speak. I aided in his 
nomination and aided in his election. It would not be proper to give 
to this committee for your information any private conversations that 
we ever had upon that question, and therefore I will not say anything 
about them. 

Mr. RoDEY. How did you aid in his nomination or election, if you 
are from Indian Territory \ 

Mr. Lewis. I live at Oklahoma City, the geographical center of the 
universe; the moral and intellectual center, also. 

Mr. Thayer. I think you could agree on something, if you are in 
such an advanced stage of civilization. I do not see so manj' signs of it. 

3Ir. Leaves. You have heard the story with reference to the frogs. 
One frog will often make an immense amount of noise. As Mr. Jones 
has said, there are two people in Oklahoma City in favor of the two 
States. One of them is the Hon. Sidney Clark and the other is a neigh- 
bor of his — just two. And I tell you the truth when I make that state- 
ment, regardless of what other people may sa}' on the question. When 
Mr. Clark called a convention to elect delegates to his convention at 
Guthrie, about which I have spoken, there was Mr. Clark, a Populist, 
and a curious Republican to see what was done, and Mr. Clark elected 
the delegates to that convention. 

Now, it has been said here that the conditions in the Indian Terri- 
tory — and 1 understand that ]\Ir. Clark has made this statement — that 
the conditions in the Indian Territory are such that annexation or 
union with the Territory of Oklahoma would be very undesirable, on 
account of the criminal conditions that exist over there and the lack 



178 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

of educational qualifications to fit them for statehood. You have some 
of the gentlemen present here, and 3'ou have looked in their faces and 
know whether the}^ seem to possess intelligence enough to perform 
those duties, but I want to say something further to 3'ou in answer to 
that. The}" cite 3'ou, as evidence of criminal conditions in the Terri- 
tor}", the fact of the great expense which the United States is put to, 
about ^300,000 a year, while tlie court expenses, so far as the United 
States courts are concerned, in Oklahoma amount to about 8125,000 a 
year, or, in other words, that the expenses are about $175,000 greater 
in the Indian Territory than in Oklahoma. Wh}" is that so i In the 
Indian Territory" the probate business is done in the United States 
courts and is taxed up as United States expenses. If a person applies 
for his majority it is United States business. Every question that 
gets into oourt OA^er there in the Indian Territory is classed as United 
states business, while in the Territory" of Oklahoma we have our 
United States courts, where United States business is transacted, and 
we have district courts, probate courts for probate business, and justice 
courts. 

Mr. Lloyd. It is not my purpose to interrupt 3"ou, but I Avant to 
call attention to the fact that we only have twelve more minutes 
remaining. 

Mr. Leavis. I will try to leave a couple of minutes for the other 
speakers. 

We have oar probate courts, we have our justice courts, and it is 
not fair to compare the court expenses of the United States' side in 
the Indian Territorj" and of the United States' side in the Territor}^ of 
Oklahoma; because Ave have all these other courts to take care of the 
business that comes before them, and it becomes a county and a Terri- 
torial charge. 

It has also been stated that there is not enough taxable propert}^ in 
the Indian Territory Avith which to sustain a State government. The 
Committee on Territories at the last Congress reported a bill for the 
creation of the Territory of Jefferson. I understand that the report 
of that committee found somew^here between sixty and seA^entA-three 
Qiillion dollars' worth of taxable property in Indian TerritorA^ at that 
time. You haA^e the Indian allotments; you have various cities; you 
haA^e the railroads, and you have personal propertA^; and after 1906 all 
except 40 acres, as the homestead of each Indian, Avill become taxable. 
But we are in a similar condition in Oklahoma. You take, for instance, 
the KioAva and Comanche countr}" in Oklahoma TerritorA^ In Kiowa, 
Comanche, and Caddo counties the people liA^e on homestead lands — 
lands that are undeeded and not taxable. 

Mr. Jones. I do not want to interrupt you, but I understand that 
that matter has been gone over and is a matter of record, and the gen- 
tleman has only one minute remaining of the time allotted to him. 

Mr. Leaa^is. I will Avind up, then, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lloyd. You can put auA^thing in the record in addition that 
you desire. 

Mr. Leavis. I haA^e some single-statehood literature. 

Mr. Lloyd. You can hand it to the reporter. 

Mr. Lewis. This gives the size of the A'arious States. I will put 
this in. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 



179 



SINGLE-STATEHOOD EESOLUTIONS OF THE OKLAHOMA CITY COMMERCIAL CLUB. 



To the Oklahoma City Commercial Club: 

Your committee on State and National legislation beg leave to submit the following 
resolution: 

Be it resolved, That we regard the question of statehood as of overwhelming impor- 
tance to the people of Oklahoma and Indian Territory, not only to those now living 
but all unborn generations. Whether statehood shall come this year or the next or 
the next we regard as of infinitesimal importance when compared with the question 
whether we shall have one or two States. We favor the creation of only one State 
out of both Territories for the following reasons: 

First. When combined as one State, its area, as compared with the other Western 
States, would be small. The area in square miles of the States and Territories west 
of the Mississippi are as follows: 

Oklahoma, 39,000; Indian Territory, 31,400; the aggregate area, 70,400. 



Minnesota 83, 365 

Arkansas 53, 850 

Missouri 69, 415 

Iowa 56, 025 

North Dakota, about 75, 000 

South Dakota, about 75, 000 

Nebraska 77,510 

Kansas 82,080 

Texas 265, 780 



New Mexico 122, 580 

Arizona 113, 020 

Colorado 103, 925 

Utah 84, 970 

Idaho 84,800 

Montana 146, 080 

Washington 69, 180 

Oregon 96,030 

California 61, 562 



It will thus be seen that of the 18 States named, 14 have a larger area than that of 
the 2 Territories combined. Missouri and Washington about the same, and Arkansas 
and Iowa a few^ square miles less, so that the 2 Territories combined have an area of 
25,171 square miles less than the average of the Western States. Oklahoma alone 
has an area of 56,571 square miles less than the average; the Indian Territory has an 
area 64,171 square miles less than the average. If combined, the 2 Territories will 
only make a fair-sized State. If divided, they will both be pygmies. 

Second. To impose upon this small area the burden of supporting two separate and 
distinct State governments would render taxation oppressive. As one State the cost 
of maintaining the State government and institutions would be very little more than 
the cost of maintaining each of the separate State governments. 

Third. In our judgment it is the desire of not less than 90 per cent of the taxpayers 
that we should have single statehood. 

Fourth. The geographical situation is such as to make nature herself an eloquent 
spokesman in favor of single statehood. This entire area was originally embraced 
within the boundaries of the Indian Territory. Oklahoma has been carved piece- 
meal out of the Indian Territory. Upon the map she now has the appearance of 
sitting in the lap of the Indian Territory. The two are wedged together; they have 
the same railroad systems; they have a homogeneous population. The mere geog- 
raphy of the country argues for single statehood. 

Fifth. The resources of the two Territories cry aloud for union. Oklahoma is 
almost wholly agricultural; the great wealth of the Indian Territory is in her mines 
and forests. With the product of the farm, the forest, and the mine allied in a com- 
mon cause of building up one State, immediate success and immense achievements 
are sure to follow. 

Sixth. It has always been the contemplation of Congress that this entire area 
should be one State. Section 1 of the organic act, being the act of May 2, 1890, after 
describing by crooked and devious lines the boundaries of Oklahoma, contains the 
following provision: 

"Any other lands within the Indian Territory not embraced within these bound- 
aries shall hereafter become a part of the Territory of Oklahoma whenever the 
Indian nation or tribe owning said lands shall signify to the President of the United 
States, in legal manner, its assent that such lands shall so become a part of said Terri- 
torv of Oklahoma, and the President shall thereupon make proclamation to that 
effect." 

Seventh. We favor single statehood because we believe that with the natural 
resources of the two Territories combined we can erect a commonwealth which will 
be a pride to the Union, a source of gratification and of prosperity to ourselves, and a 
rich heritage to our posterity. 

Be it further rewired, That it is our desire that Congress, in legislating upon this 
subject, should be fair toward the people of the Indian Territory. AVe think they 



180 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

are entitled to a voice in the location of all public institutions, in the formation and 
adoption of our organic law, and in the initial steps leading up to the union. 

We do most earnestly, persistently, and respectfully petition Congress to heed the 
wishes of the people of the two Territories on this question; to legislate not for the 
present but for the vast and unlimited future; to ignore party lines. 

We do most strenuously protest against being made the toys of politicians or the 
tool of any political party. We say it is not a question of politics, but a question of 
business, of taxation, of the future. We are absolutely indifferent to the possible 
political complexion of the single State, but, regardless of political considerations, we 
wish that legislation which will best subserve the cause of the people of these two 
Territories. 

Be it further resolved, That the secretary of this club have 500 copies of these reso- 
lutions printed, and that from that number he shall furnish a copy to each member 
of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. 
Respectfully submitted. 

C. B. Ames, Chairman, 
R. E. Campbell, 
Frank Wells, 
Committee on State and National Legislation. 

The foregoing resolutions were unanimously adopted at a meeting of the club on 
February 4, 1902, attended by about 200 of the leading men of Oklahoma City. 

Clifton George, Secretary. 

Mr. Thayer. I understood you to say there were onl}^ two parties 
in Oklahoma City in favor of separate statehood, one Mr. Clark and 
the other his neig-hbor. Do 3^ou know what ex-Congressman Flj^nn's 
position was? 

Mr. Lewis. He did not live there at the time. 

Mr. Thayer. No matter whether he lived there or not, do you know 
what his position is or was ? 

Mr. Lewis. I have not talked with him recently. 

Mr. Thayer. He seemed to be a fairly intelligent man. 

Mr. Lewis. Mr. Flynn's bill provided for a single statehood for 
Oklahoma with a piecemeal process, the same as the McGuire bill. 
That was his position when he was a member of Congress. Whether 
he has changed his views or not will be for Mr. Flynn to state to the 
committee. 

Mr. Thayer. He was diametrically opposed to joining Oklahoma 
with Indian Territory last year. 

Mr. Lewis. Yes. 

Mr. Thayer. Then there are three opposed to it somewhere? 

Mr. Lewis. I did not confine my remarks to the whole Territory; 
1 said that there were only that many in Oklahoma City. 

Mr. Robinson. You can hand that pamphlet to the stenographer. 

Mr. Lewis. 1 just want to read from two reports here, and then I 
will be done; just about two minutes. 

This is the report of the governor of Oklahoma to the Secretary 
of the Interior for 1896 — the report of Governor Renfrow — who was 
a Democratic governor appointed by Mr. Cleveland. I would like to 
read you what he said: 

This question has been so much and so ably discussed, both by the press and in 
the halls of Congress, that it is unnecessary for me to enter into a discussion- of the 
question, but I beg to express my firm conviction that the best interests of the whole 
people will be subserved by the early admission of Oklahoma and Indian Territories 
into the Union as one State. United they would make one strong and prosperous Com- 
monwealth; divided, two small States with double the expense of State government. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 181 

On page 41 of Governor Barnes's report there is a paragraph I would 
like to read. Governor Barnes was President McKinley's appointee. 
[Reading.] 

In my judgment the formation of two separate States would be burdensome and 
annoying to the j^eople of both, while a union of the two would make a strong, vig- 
orous, and prosperous State. 

There is one Democratic governor and one Republican governor; 
3^ou have heard from both of them. Does that look like the sentiment 
is one way there or not ? 

Just a word or two more and I am through. We are much opposed 
to the McGuire bill on account of the piecemeal process. It will engen- 
der strife that the people will not get over for the next forty years. 
We prefer to have one State. And with that statement I will close my 
argument and leave the question with 3^ou. 

Mr. Lewis filed the following as an addition to his statement for 
the purpose of showing that there were as many or more blanket 
Indians in Oklahoma than in Indian Territory; and also the resolutions 
passed and memorial adopted at the joint statehood convention held at 
Muscogee, November 14, 1901, for the purpose of showing the desires 
of the people of the two Territories and their fitness for statehood: 

Xiimber of Indians in OMahoma. 

Under school superintendent : 

Absentee Shawnee 687 

Citizen Potawatomi 1, 686 

Mexican Kickapoo 247 

Cheyenne and Arapaho Agency: 

Arapaho .' 905 

Cheyenne 1, 903 

Kiowa Agency: 

Apache 164 

Comanche 1, 407 

Kiowa 1, 134 

"Wichita, including Caddo, Delaware, Towakoni, and Keechi 596 

Under War Department: 

Apache, at Fort Sill 298 

Xot under an agent: 

Potawatomi and Absentee Shawnee m Pottawatomie County 100 

Osage Agency: 

Kansa ( Kaw ) 222 

Osage 1, 833 

Under Pawnee school superintendent: 

Pawnee 638 

Ponea, etc., Agency: 

Oto and Missouri 370 

Ponca 557 

Tonkawa 54 

Sac and Fox Agencv: 

Iowa ". 91 

Sac and Fox 479 

Total 

Xumber of Indians in Indian Territory. 
Quapaw Agency: 

Eastern Shawnee 100 

Miami 110 

Modoc 47 

Ottawa 167 

Peoria 185 



182 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Quapaw Agency — Continued. 

Quapaw 271 

Seneca 351 

Wyandot 354 

Union Agency: 

Cherokee, including freedmen 35, 000 

Chickasaw, including freedmen 11, 500 

Choctaw, including freedmen 20, 250 

Creek, including freedmen 15, 000 

Seminole 2, 750 

Total 



[Exhibit to argument of D. C. Lewis, Oklahoma City.] 
Joint statehood convention, held at Muscogee, Ind. T., November 14, 1901. 

The convention was called to order at 2.15 by Chairman Castle. Divine blessing 
was invoked by Rev. M. L. Buter, of Muscogee. 

E. C. West, of Muscogee welcomed the people to the city. When he said the 
sentiment of the people is "for one great and glorious State for the two Territories,'^ 
there was loud applause. Again, when he said "We don't want the best of the 
arrangement of statehood, nor do we expect Oklahoma to want the advantage, but 
what we want is an equal copartnership in one common heritage of future glory," 
there was loud applause. 

" We must not settle our affairs by quarreling, but by amicable adjustment, know- 
ing that the benefit to one is to the advantage of all, ' ' was a ■ sentiment that was 
applauded. He assured the delegates of the sincerity of Muscogee's welcome to the 
delegates. 

Col. Roy Hoffman, of Chandler, responded to the address of welcome. 

W. T. Hutchings, of Muscogee, was placed in nomination for temporary chairman 
of the convention. The election was without dissent. Mr. Hutchings expressed his 
views on single statehood, confessing recent conversion to the idea, saying that six 
months ago he did not know what was best, but after a careful examination into the 
facts surrounding the situation, and a scrutiny of the problems confronting the peo- 
ple, he was firmly convinced that statehood for the Indian Territory could only be 
obtained by a union with Oklahoma, and that it could only be secured by pushing 
the matter now, and sending representatives to Washington to keep the matter before 
Congress. 

' ' When, a little less than a year ago, a single-statehood convention was held at 
South McAlester, I did not favor it, but a careful examination of the situation con- 
vinces me that there is no other Avay, and single statehood is to us now a cloud by 
day and a pillar of fire by night to lead us out of the wilderness to the promised land." 

Mr. Hutchings said that those opposing single statehood had cried out, "Let's take 
care of the Indian! " " When the white man is benefited in the Indian Territory the 
Indian has always been benefited," said Mr. Hutchings. "In 1898 a law was passed 
by Congress which says that every Indian citizen in the Territory must live on his 
allotment, and must not hold an inch more under penalty of the law. If an Indian 
citizen dies now, after selecting his allotment, where does his land go? Not to his 
heirs or assigns, not to his family, but back to the tribe. This is not a condition 
that the Indian wants, but he wants to own his land with a patent to it and when 
he dies it shall go to his family for their benefit." 

Concluding his remarks, showing the benefit of statehood along educational lines, 
etc., Mr. Hutchings declared the convention ready for business. W. C. Herring, 
city marshal of Muscogee, was elected sergeant-at-arms. Harry Gilstrap, of Chan- 
dler, was made secretary. F. H. Greer had been agreed on for secretary, but could 
not serve. 

Judge Bradford, of Ardmore, moved that a committee of three be appointed to 
arrange an order of business. The motion prevailed, with an amendment by 
Governor Barnes, of Oklahoma, that the committee be composed of six members 
from each Territory. 

On motion of J. W. Hocker, of Purcell, a committee of six, three members from 
each Territory, on credentials was appointed. 

J. Roy Williams, of Lawton, w^as elected assistant secretary. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 183 

Bion S. Hutchins, of Pauls Valley, moved that a committee of six be appointed on 
permanent organization. The motion carried. 

Governor C. M. Barnes, of Oklahoma, moved that a committee of thirty, fifteen 
from each Territory, be appointed on resolutions. The motion was adopted. 

J. B. Turner, of Vinita, asked what the committee on resolutions was expected to 
do, and urged that it be instructed to prepare a memorial to Congress, setting forth 
the needs of the two Territories, as well as preparing suitable resolutions. "We 
want a 'bill of rights' to go| before Congress with," said Mr. Turner, and the senti- 
ment of the convention was with him. 

The committee on resolutions as selected by the delegates from each Territory was 
appointed as follows: 

Oklahoma: R. B. Forrest, Louis N. Williams, Robert J. Rav, M. E. Sharp, J. B. 
Ferguson, R. C. Eckles, Pat Nagle, Jere Johnson, H. B. Gilstrap, F. H. Greer, T. H. 
Doyle, C. B. Ames, W. H. Redwine, Freeman E. Miller, Chas. F. Barrett. 

Indian Territory: F. H. Kellogg, E. E. Daniels, A. T. West, J. J. McAlester, Choc- 
taw Nation; D. D. Sayers, J. W. Hocker, U. G. Wynn, Chickasaw Nation; J. B. 
Turner, Wm. Johnson, A. E, Ivey, A. S. Haygood, Cherokee Nation; J. F. Eads, 
D. M. Wisdom, A. F. Parkinson, A". G. W. Sango, Creek and Seminole Nations. 

The committee on credentials was as follows: C. H. Filson, W. M. Cross, D. A. 
Jacobs, Oklahoma; Bion S. Hutchins, Wm. Noble, L. W. Howe, Indian Territory. 

Committee on order of business: J. P. Woolsey, D. D. Leach, J. R. Hale, Oklahoma: 
S. B. Bradford, T. N. Foster, Philip Samuels, Indian Territory. 

Ex-Governor Cassius M. Barnes, of Oklahoma, was called on for a speech when 
the committees retired to make their reports. He said that the facts demanding the 
attention of Congress for statehood for the two Territories had been thrashed over so 
much and were so familiar to the people that he felt that it would be unnecessary, 
and he thought now the time to act and not talk. He said that resolutions and 
memorials are worthless unless there is something behind them. He suggested that 
money should be raised to send representatives to Washington to lay the matter 
before Congress and get the Congressional ear, and suggested that ideas on the best 
means of accomplishing this were more in order than a thrashing over of old straw 
about the necessity of statehood. 

While the convention was taking a recess several letters were read. One, from 
Senator Charles H. Dietrich, of Nebraska, expressed the belief that there should be 
single statehood and that Congress should heed the call for legislation from the Ter- 
ritories. He expressed the belief, in the letter read, that if single statehood could 
not be had now that single Territorial government should be given the two Territo- 
ries, and they should have a form of local self-government. A letter was read from 
Congressman Charles Curtis, of Kansas, author of the "Curtis law," now in effect in 
the Territory, wishing success for the single-statehood meeting to-day. 

A rather noncommittal letter was read from Hon. Dennis T. Flynn, Delegate in 
Congress from Oklahoma. A letter indorsing statehood and saying that he believed 
the Territories deserved statehood was read. 

The committee on order of business made its report as follows: 

1. Hearing report of committee on credentials. 

2. Hearing report of committee on permanent organization. 

3. Hearing report of committee on resolutions. 

4. Selection of an executive committee of fifteen from each Territory to carry on 
the work for single statehood. 

This committee suggested that a committee of six, three from each Territory, be 
selected by the executive committee to take a memorial to Washington and press it 
before Congress, setting forth the condition in the two Territories, filing facts and 
other data, and securing the attention of Congress at once to take immediate action. 
The report was received. 

The report of the committee on credentials was read. The report showed 210 
accredited delegates from each Territory. Fifteen counties in Oklahoma were rep- 
resented by delegates, and fifty municipalities in the Indian Territory. The report 
was received. 

The committee on permanent organization reported. It recommended E. N. Rat- 
cliff, of Vinita, for permanent chairman, and Harry Gilstrap, of Oklahoma, for per- 
manent secretary; Roy E. Williams and Harry E. Brow^n as assistant secretaries. 
The report was received. 

Permanent Chairman Ratcliff was escorted to the chair by a committee and thanked 
the convention for the honor. He is an Indian citizen by adoption, but with a fair 
complexion that marks him more a Celt than an aborigine of America. He said 
that he was a business man and not a speaker, and that his native home was Texas; 
therefore he could not be expected to favor a little two-by-four State for the Indian 
Territorv, and he is heart and soul for single statehood. 



184 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Judge John R. Thomas, of Muscogee, was called on and addressed the convention 
briefly, stating that he had favored statehood for the Territor}' independent of Okla- 
homa, but that was impossible, and he now favored single statehood, as that was better 
than the present form of government and as good as the people could get. These 
conditions now existing, he said, do not please or meet the approval of white, red, 
or black men in the Territory, and they all want a change to local self-government. 
He said that eastern and northern Republicans would never be willing to make two 
States with a probability of four Democratic Senators, and that alone would force the 
two Territories to come in as one State or remain out indefinitely, and he expressed 
the opinion that the only w^ay for either to get statehood is for them to join hands 
and knock at the Congressional door together. He urged the convention to raise 
money and send a memorial to Congress in the hands of men who know how" to pre- 
sent these matters to the lawmakers and to get their attention. 

D. C. Lewis, of Oklahoma City, spoke for single statehood from the standpoint of 
a Republican, and said he would rather have a single State with woman's suffrage 
and prohibition than a government as it now exists. 

Freeman Miller spoke for single statehood from the Democratic standpoint, and said 
that local self-government were better with Republicans in power than the present 
carpetbag system of government. 

At 5.30 adjournment was taken till 6.30. It was later than that when the com- 
mittee reported the following members of the executive committee: 

Oklahoma: R. B. Forrest, W. J. Hess, J. B. Ferguson, P. S. Nagle, Jere Johnson, 
T. B. Knapp, L. G. Niblack, Ernest Boland, A. L. Welsh. B. B. Blakenev, J. M. 
Mathews, W. H. Redwine, L. P. Ross, E. C. Eckols, I. Billups. 

Indian Territory: Harry Campbell, W. W. Witten, C. E. Foley, C. E. Castle, 
Creek Nation; Ed^McKenna, W. H. Ansley, T. C. Humphrev, William Noble, Choc- 
taw" Nation; L. W. Howe, W. L. Knott, S. B. Bradford, E. C. White, Chickasaw 
Nation; A. L. Kates, J. T. Smith, W. G. Smith, E. N. Ratcliff, Cherokee Nation. 

The executive committee selected the following delegates to go to Washington to 
present the memorial to Congress: 

Oklahoma: Governor C. M. Barnes, C. F. Barrett, T. H. Doyle. 

Indian Territory: S. B. Bradford, W. H. P. Trudgeon, C. E. Foley. 

The convention passed a vote of thanks to the people of Muscogee for their hos- 
pitality and then adjourned. 



MEMORIAL TO COXGEESS. 

Whereas the people of Oklahoma Territory and the Indian Territory have assem- 
bled at the city of Muscogee this 14th day of November, 1901, without reference to 
political affiliations; and 

Whereas we believe that the two Territories are ripe for immediate statehood and 
entitled to all the rights and privileges afforded to a sovereign people under the 
principles w^hich control republican forms of government: Now, therefore, we pre- 
sent the following memorial to Congress: 

It has become evident that the union of Oklahoma and Indian Territories into one 
State is inevitable. They have the vrealth, the energy, and civilization entitling 
them to statehood at once. The Territories have a population of more than 
800,000 and an assessed value of real and personal propertv of more than 
1100,000,000, with an actual value of more than 8300,000,000— greater wealth and 
population than were possessed by a large majority of the States when admitted 
into the United States; more wealth and population than are now possessed by 
many of the States. There are in the two Territories 211,000 school children. 

In the Indian Territory, excepting a few incorporated towns, the people are with- 
out public schools for the education of their children. It is the duty of Congress to 
give these people such government as will enable them to protect their children from 
ignorance and vice. 

The people of the Indian Territory are without adequate roads, and the schools are 
inadequate; thej have no asylums for the unfortunate, for the deaf, dumb, blind, and 
insane. They can not have these because of no law of self-government. They are 
without authority to make laws for the protection of cities and towns from the rav- 
ages of fire and communities from pestilence and disease. The rural districts of the 
Indian Territory are without protection to life and property. Great bodies of min- 
eral lie dormant and unproductive, and all industries languish for want of laws under 
which they can be properly developed. In agriculture and in mineral, in timber 
and all the natural attributes of wealth, they would form a State equal in point of 
resources to any in the Federal Union. The people of Oklahoma are anxious for 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 185 

self-government; they have every requisite for it. The people of the Indian Terri- 
toryexist under intolerable conditions; they cry for relief; they feel that Congress 
should heed their voices. It was but a just tribute to the intelligence and patriotism 
of the Indians that Congress, in 1901, by special enactment, declared all Indians in 
the Indian Territory citizens of the United States, with all the rights, privileges, and 
blessings of such, thus acknowledging them capable of self-government. 

All the citizens of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory are thoroughly capable of 
self-government. United into one State, the two Territories would make a magnifi- 
cent Commonwealth. As an evidence of the fact that the two Territories are becom- 
ing homogeneous, the Territory of Oklahoma has opened her institutions of higher 
education to the people of the Indian Territory. The vast change of sentiment in 
the Indian Territory on the question of union of Oklahoma during the last year 
makes the people of the two Territories practically a unit for single statehood. The 
two Territories, when admitted to statehood, should be given the privilege incident 
thereto, together and at the same time, that each may enjoy alike the new progress 
that is certain to follow, and that harmony and cooperation on the part of the people 
of the two Territories may be accelerated and assured of. The permanent good of 
the people is vastly more important than the temporary advantage of any section, 
and we oppose any policy which would shape the course of statehood legislation of 
local advantage. As Congress has provided large school reservations for the Terri- 
tory of Oklahoma, and for her public buildings, we ask that Congress provide by 
some means an appropriate amount of public lands for school purposes for the people 
of the Indian Territory. Both Territories, by their representatives in convention 
assembled, urge upon Congress the immediate passage of an enabling act providing 
for the formation of one State by the people of the two Territories. 

We have ample property for taxation, the will and the desire to support the 
expenses of a State government. 

Is that boon sought by all intelligent, patriotic American freemen, that of self- 
government, to be denied us longer? 



RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED AT MUSCOGEE CONVENTION NOVEMBER 14, 1901. 

Resolved, That Congress is hereby requested to pass an enabling act immediately, 
providing that the Indian Territory and Oklahoma be given the right to hold a joint 
constitutional convention to form a State constitution for approval and submission to 
Congress for the admission of a new State into the Union, to be composed of the 
country now occupied by the people of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory. 

Resolved, That efforts be made that Congress take appropriate steps at the coming 
session to remove the chaotic and oppresive conditions that prevail in the Indian 
Territory, and that all future legislation in regard to the Territory to be so shaped as 
to guarantee its people, now numbering approximately a half million souls, a stable, 
permanent, and constitutional government, free as possible from outside federal 
dominations and irresponsible control. 

Resolved, That single Statehood composed of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory 
obtained with proper restrictions and safeguards is, in the sense of this convention, 
the surest and earliest remedy for our many grievances, and that it will bring to us 
at its consummation large educational facilities, equal and just taxation, and equal 
privileges to all classes of our citizens without regard to race, and will be at the outset 
a State marvelous in resources, confident of immediate development and destined 
to take a high rank in the sisterhood. 

Resolved, That whereas it is a wise settled policy of this nation that no more States 
of small area shall be brought into the Union, and whereas there exists no difficulty 
in order to preserve the equality of the States and the balance of power between the 
section, why such small States should be created and perpetuated: Therefore 

We petition Congress for the crown of a sovereign State, composed of Oklahoma 
Territory and the Indian Territory, commensurate with the premises of this great 
Republic. 

Resolved, That we are unalterably opposed to the admission to statehood of Okla- 
homa with any part of the Indian Territory tacked on, and the taking into said 
State the Indian Territory by piecemeal, but We demand the admission of Oklahoma 
and Indian Territory as a whole, according to their present boundaries. 

Resolved, That we are unalterably opposed to single statehood between Oklahoma 
and Indian Territory except upon absolute equality in point of representation based 
upon population. 

Resolved, That the lands in the Indian Territory be allotted to the Indians of the 
several tribes immediately, and a fee simple title issue to said lands and the allottees 
be allowed to dispose of their lands other than their homesteads without restraint. 



186 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 



EXTEACTS PROM REPORT OF GOVERNOR OF OKLAHOMA FOR 1900. 

The Republican party conventions have repeatedly resolved in favor of statehood 
for Oklahoma, with such conditions and additions as Congress may deem best. The 
allied parties in opposition demand immediate statehood with Oklahoma and the 
Indian Territory as a single State. Both the Democratic and Republican national 
conventions promise statehood to Oklahoma in their respective platforms. It is 
therefore reasonabl}^ certain that in the near future Congress will pass an enabling 
act, and that Oklahoma will soon be admitted as a State. 

The prosperous conditions prevailing in Oklahoma, her population, area, and 
wealth, as shown by the four annual reports which I have had the honor to submit 
to you, when compared with like conditions prevailing in a large number of States 
at the time of their admission into the Union, amply justify our claims for statehood. 

We have a larger population to-day than either of the States of Delaware, Idaho, 
Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Utah, Vermont, or Wyoming. 
We polled a larger vote in 1896 than in either of the States of Delaware, Florida, Idaho, 
Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, or Rhode Island. We have, as now organized, a 
larger area than any of the following-named States, viz: Connecticut, Delaware, Indi- 
ana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New^ Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, 
Vermont, or West Virginia. 

The actual wealth of Oklahoma is not less than $135,000,000; the assessed valuation 
of taxable wealth for the year 1900 is more than $49,000,000. 

The following table shows the amount of actual and assessed wealth of several of 
the States at the date of their admission, statistics as to the other States not being 
obtainable here: 



State. 


Actual 
wealth. 


Assessed 
wealth. 


Wisconsin 


$42, 000, 000 
39, 000, 000 
23, 000, 000 
24, 000, 000 
19,000,000 
52; 000, 000 
22,000,000 
31, 000, 000 

125,000,000 


$31, 200, 000 
23, 400, OCO 
13, 800, 800 
13, 200, 000 


Arkansas 


Florida ... 


Iowa 


Oregon 


11,400,000 
32, 087, 730 


Minnesota 


California 


13, 296, 000 


Kansas 


22, 500, 000 




49, 000, 000 





The census of 1890 shows the population of Oklahoma to have been 61,834. A 
conservative estimate of present population is very close to 400,000. 

The following table shows the population of 22 States at the time of their admis- 
sion and at the preceding and following censuses: 



state. 



Vermont .. 
Kentucky . 
Tennessee . 

Ohio 

Louisiana . 
Indiana . . . 
Mississippi . 

Illinois 

Alabama . . 
Missouri . . . 
Arkansas . . 
Michigan.. 

Florida 

Iowa 

Wisconsin . 
California . 
Minnesota . 

Oregon 

Kansas 

Nevada 

Nebraska . . 
Colorado . . 



Date of ad- 
mission. 



Average for 22 States . 



1791 
1792 
1796 
1802 
1812 
1816 
1817 
1818 
1819 
1821 
1836 
1837 
1845 
1846 
1848 
1850 
1858 
1859 
1861 
1864 
1867 
1876 



Represent- 
ative ratio 
on previ- 
ous census. 



33, 000 
33, 000 
33, 000 
33, 000 
35, 000 
35, 000 
35, 000 
35, 000 
35, 000 
40, 000 
47, 700 
47, 700 
70, 680 
70, 680 
70, 680 
93, 423 
93, 423 
93, 423 
127, 381 
127, 381 
127, 381 
131, 425 



Population 
by previ- 
ous census. 



80, 213 
70, 109 
53, 213 
45, 365 
70, 017 
60, 074 
40, 352 
55, 220 
67,901 
66, 586 
30, 338 
31, 699 
54,477 
43, 112 

155, 270 
92, 597 
68, 812 
52, 170 

107, 206 

6,857 

28, 841 

39, 864 



59, 103 



Estimated 
population 
when ad- 
mitted. 



I 

Population 
by follow- 
ing census. 



85, 425 
73, 677 
67, 000 
46, 365 

76. 556 
63, 879 
55, 512 
38,620 

127,901 

67. 557 
52,240 
65, 000 
64, 000 
78, 819 

180, 000 
92, 597 

120, 000 
60, 000 

107,206 
40, 000 

100, 000 

100, 000 



77, 380 



154, 446 
220, 955 
105, 602 
230, 760 
152, 923 
147, 178 

75, 448 

55, 162 
127, 901 
140, 444 

97, 574 
212, 267 

87, 445 
192, 214 
305, 391 
379, 994 
172, 023 

62, 405 
364, 399 

42, 491 
122,993 
194, 646 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 



187 



These figures show that Oklahoma has five times the average population, and the 
enumeration of school children in the Territory for 1899 was greater than the popula- 
tion of 20 of the States at the time of their admission into the Union. 

The following table of figures shows the vote cast at Presidential elections and the 
number of years after their admission of 12 prominent States: 



state. 


Years 
after ad- 
mission. 


Votes 
cast. 




28 

8 

10 

15 

15 

4 

28 

3 

3 

3 

14 

2 


20. 725 




15, 725 


Illinois 


8,344 
5, 192 


Missouri 


Mississippi . . 


5,007 
] 1,209 




Louisiana 


18 914 


Florida 


4,963 


Texas 


15, 177 
24 303 


Iowa 




14, 649 


Nebraska - 


15 168 








Average 


10 


13, 133 







Oklahoma in 1896 cast 53,000 votes. 

The citizenship of Oklahoma is very largely composed of intelligent and educated 
people, American born and raised in the various States about us, who know the 
obligations and are willing to assume the full responsibilities of statehood. 

Eespectfully submitted. 

CM. Barnes, Governor. 

The Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C. 



COUNCIL JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 2. 



We, the members of the council and the house of representatives of the sixth 
legislative assembly of the Territory of Oklahoma, do most respectfully and earnestly 
pray, petition, and memorialize you and your honorable bodies to grant to this Terri- 
tory and its people at the earliest possible moment the high privileges of a sovereign 
Stale in the American Union. 

We represent a constituency of nearly half a million people, increasing with unex- 
ampled rapidity, who inhabit nearly 40,000 square miles of fertile soil, and w^ho own 
$150,000,000 of wealth produced in a single decade from the wild prairie and the 
wilderness. In all its possible lines they stand at the very front of modern civiliza- 
tion. They have built and are supporting more than tw^o thousand common schools, 
six great institutions of learning, and more churches according to population and 
wealth than elsewhere in the world. They are a laAv-abiding and a law-enforcing 
people. In educational, moral, and religious life; in material resources; in popula- 
tion and wealth; in energy, enterprise, and accomplishment; in all the high ideals 
of honorable living, in patriotism and the staunch elements of America's best citizen- 
ship, they are as unsurpassed as they have proved themselves unrivaled in their 
capacities for self-government and in their culture and refinement. 

We submit to the judgment of a candid world that such a people ought not to be 
longer held in political subjection, but are and of right ought to be entitled to imme- 
diate admission into the American Union as a sovereign State. We would further 
call your respectful attention to the Indian Territory, lying upon our eastern borders. 
Its natural resources are supplemental to those of Oklahoma. The abnormal condi- 
tions there existing as to title and tenure of lands, of citizenship, and of social con- 
ditions are being rapidlj^ composed to the American idea, and the law by slow and 
painful experience is learning to assert its power and to subserve public and individual 
rights. But 350,000 ^vhite and black American citizens are there existing without 
any political privileges, without local self-government, mere tenants at w'ill and peas- 
ants of the soil to 70,000 persons of Indian extraction. They can build neither roads 
nor bridges, neither schools nor higher institutions of learning, neither asylums for 
the unfortunate nor refuges for the poor. The individual is all, the community is 
nothing. They can not protect their cities against fire, nor themselves against pub- 
lic epidemic or contagion. Such conditions are so contrary to the very genius and 



188 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

vitality of the American standards that their continuance is not only unjust to the 
people immediately suffering them, but menacing to their political neighbors and to 
the nation itself. We believe that immediate relief should be had by them, and if 
in your wisdom Oklahoma alone is not entitled to statehood, we urge the immediate 
admission into the Federal Union of both such Territories as one single State. 

We are not unmindful of the treat)^ obligations of the United States to the Five 
Civilized Tribes, and would not seek their violation. Let them be sacredly observed. 
But we most solemnly assert that the various boards and agencies of the Federal Gov- 
ernment can proceed after the political privileges of citizenship and the inestimable 
right of local self-government are secured to the American citizens resident there, 
quite as well as if the present conditions of tenantry and political obliteration shall 
continue indefinitely. 

From the foregoing considerations we therefore most solemnly pray, petition, and 
memorialize you and your respective bodies to grant to the people of Oklahoma 
and the Indian Territory one government, with immediate statehood, under such 
conditions as in your wisdom will best subserve the present and future welfare and 
prosperity of the State you shall thus create and admit into the Federal Union. 

Approved this 8th day of March, 1901. 



EXTEACT FEOM GOVERNOE's EEPOET, 1901. 

The people of Oklahoma are all looking forward to the time when our Territory 
will be admitted as a State in the Union. When our population, wealth, and area 
are considered, the question at once arises. Why is Oklahoma not admitted as a 
State? We look back over the legislation affecting our Territory from the time it 
was organized, and we find running through all of this legislation the proviso that 
Congress may add additional territory of the Five Civilized Tribes and other tribes in 
Oklahoma when the Indians of those tribes so request of the President that Indian 
Territory may become attached to the United States, and we infer from this legisla- 
tion that it has been the intention and thought of Congress since Oklahoma was first 
organized out of the old Indian Territory that the entire original Indian Territory 
should eventually become one State. If this is true, then the people of Oklahoma 
are directly interested in the conditions existing in the Indian Territory, and it 
becomes not only our right but our duty, if w^e are to be withheld from statehood 
until that Territory reaches a condition to be admitted with us, to use every effort to 
advance the social and political development of that Territory, to the end that we 
may be admitted to statehood together. 



CHAOTIC INDIAN TEEEITOEY. 

Affairs in the Indian Territory are somewhat chaotic. It is a question of legisla- 
tion and not of administration which presents itself. The administration, under the 
present laws and conditions must necessarily move slowly. There are two questions 
to consider and difficult problems to solve for the executive department of the Gov- 
ernment to be charged with the responsibility of solving them at long range, and it is 
practically impossible for these questions ever to be satisfactorily solved until repre- 
sentatives of these people, w^ho are responsible to the people and community directly, 
are elected to Congress with the responsibilit}^ of working out these difficult prob- 
lems. The Indian Territory situation is without precedent in this country. Whether 
the legislation so far has been the best possible for the Territory or not time only will 
tell. 

* ^ 4«- * * ^ * 

As before stated, what the Indian Territory most needs is wise legislation, which 
will lay the foundation of an American community, with proper provisions for schools, 
churches, convenient highways, and the exercise of political rights and individual 
responsibility. They now have courts, but they operate under a different code of 
laws from Oklahoma, and rights and precedents are growing up which in the future 
will lead to confusion. Up to the present time, since the organization of Oklahoma, 
there has been practically no intercommunication or sympathetic cooperation between 
the two Territories. If they are to become one State, as the geography and natural 
conditions ail seem to indicate, then the present conditions should not continue longer, 
but provisions to bring them under like laws should be made by Congress, at once 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 189 

giving to the people themselves the opportunity to work out these social and political 
problems, and when that is done 1 have no fears l3ut what they will be solved in 
harmony with the most iDractical American ideas. 

Mr. Jones. I next wish to introduce Mr. J. H. Maxe}^ jr. 
The Chairman. What is ^^our business, Mr. Maxe\^? 

STATEMENT OF MH. J. H. MAXEY, JR., OF SHAWNEE, OXLA. 

Mr. Maxey. I am a lawyer and reside in Shawnee. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 1 think Mr. Lewis 
was a little unfair. He made the remark that he would leave me two 
minutes. I think he onh' left me a minute and a half. He cut me out 
of a half a minute, and so 1 am onl}^ going to take up my time. 

I take it that it is conceded by all members of the committee, and by 
all who know anj^thing about this question, that Oklahoma, on account 
of her wealth and her population and the standard of the intelligence 
of her people, is entitled to be admitted to the Union as a State, and 
that the Indian Territory, bej'ond a reasonable doubt, is entitled to 
some change from their present system of- carpet-bag rule, hampered 
as she is bj^ the tardy and eccentric rulings of the Interior Department. 

I will not go into any discussion as to the material reasons why these 
Territories should be entitled to form a State of the Union, either 
united or divided. And I also take it that the only question at issue 
before this committe at this time is whether or not it will be better for 
the nation and better for the people who reside in Indian Territor}^ and 
in Oklahoma to be united as one State or to be admitted as two States. 

There has been some question, I understand, some criticisms pre- 
sented by speakers heretofore, in regard to the Indian Territory, in 
which they have charged that the people of that Territor}' were not 
susceptible or that they were not ht in some way, at this time, to enter 
upon the responsibilities of a State government. I will not attempt, 
as I said before, to discuss that proposition at any length; but I want 
to reiterate a few statements that have been made in order that the 
committee ma}' not forget them in their deliberations on this question; 
and one particularly about the intelligence of the people who reside in 
Indian Territor}'. 

We admit that the percentage of illiteracy in that Territory is a 
little larger than the percentage of illiterac}^ in Oklahoma, Arkansas, 
Kansas, and Texas, which are the adjoining States and Territories. 
That condition, however, is ver}' easil}" explained, and I presume that 
3'ou are all familiar with it. You will recollect that prior to the pas- 
sage of the Curtis Act, which I believe was in 1898, the people in 
Indian Territory were absoluteh' provided with no free school facili- 
ties whatever. The Indian Territory has been settled a long time. 
People have resided there since the civil war — a great man}' white 
people. The Cherokee Nation has been thickly settled for twenty-live 
years; the Cherokee Nation has been a thickly-settled community for 
twenty-five years; the Choctaw Nation has had a great man}' white 
people residing in it for a long time. 

The outcome of this, of course, was that boys and girls who 
resided in this Territory would groAv into manhood and womanhood 
without any educational facilities, and they have had no educational 
facilities except when parents were able to send them to schools at a 
distance, or perhaps a little subscription school in the neighborhood. 



190 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

It would then surprise j^ou, I should think, to see that the percentage 
of illiterac}^ is not larger than it is in the Indian Territor}^ Since the 
passage of the Curtis Act in 1898 nearh^ all of the important towns in 
Indian Territory have taken advantage of that act and have incorpo- 
rated solel}", or mainl}^, I may say, for the purpose of the benefit of 
the school sj'stem that was provided for b}^ that act. The}^ noAv have 
public schools in all of those towns, and the children who reside there 
are accorded the benefits of the public school education. 

I have studied conditions there a great deal myself and I have pre- 
pared a great amount of statistics here in the last Congress, together 
with Mr. Powell, and have presented them on the Moon bill that was 
then pending. It was a bill to create an organized Territor}^ out of 
the Indian Territory. I think it will be safe to say at the present 
time that, notwithstanding the school S3^stem in the organized towns, 
there are 33^ per cent of the children of the Indian Territory who 
have no school facilities whatever. So then, gentlemen, are jou. sur- 
prised to learn that the percentage or illiteracy in Indian Territor}^ is 
larger than in the States and Territories adjoining^ 

A Bystandee. By actual count there are 80 per cent there that have 
no school facilities. 

Mr. Maxey. Yes, sir. 

Now, then, as to the business, the professional and the farming ele- 
ment of the Indian Territory, I think that they are on a par to-day 
with business and professional men of the States generally west of the 
Mississippi River. I would make this statement, and I think that an}^ 
man that is familiar with the conditions in Indian Territor}^ would 
bear me out in it, that the bar to-day of the Indian Territorv is not 
excelled by a State west of the Mississippi River. I could name to you, 
Mr. Chairman, for an hour, men who are at the bar, either within m}^ 
own personal knowledge, or whom I know by reputation, who would 
do credit to the bar of the cit}^ of New York or do credit to the bar of 
any State in the Union. So 1 do not think, in fact it appeals to me 
as being absolutely absurd — the proposition that the people of Indian 
Territor}' are in any wa}" not capable of organizing and forming or 
participating in the organization and formation of a State government. 

I think that this is conceded, and I will not discuss it further. The 
matter has been brought up and has been discussed b}" Mr. Lewis, and 
I will onh^ take a moment on the records of the criminal courts in 
Indian Territorv, which has been cited b}' parties advocating separate 
statehood as a reason why the}^ are not susceptible of self-government. 
That is understood by the committee. You understand that there is 
not one case in ten in Oklahoma Territory that is prosecuted by the 
United States Government. Our cases are prosecuted the same as 
cases in Indiana or Missouri. The Territor}^ prosecutes their cases 
and pa3^s all expenses. We pa}^ our district attorney, sherifi's, and our 
witness fees — everj^thing in connection with the courts except the 
salary of the judges and the small compensation paid by the United 
States to the clerk of the court. Most of their compensation is 
derived from fees. 

Therefore it is misleading and wholl}^ unfair for a man to sa}^ that 
the record in the Indian Territory shows that the United States pa^^s 
$300,000 in round numbers for the court expenditures in Indian Ter- 
ritory^ and only pays $135,000 in Oklahoma. In every respect the 
courts in Indian Territory take judicial notice of every crime and adju- 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 191 

dicate it to a final conclusion, whilein Oklahoma they do not take 
cognizance of one case out of ten. in my district and the district in 
which I practice law there is not one criminal case in twenty-live that 
is prosecuted b}' the United States Government. Therefore you can 
not compare the expenditures of the United States in these Territo- 
ries as to the relative amount of criminalit}^ existing there, for the 
United States paj^s all the expense in the Indian Territor}'. but in Okla- 
homa they only pay a small part. 

The other statistical matter as to the question of the people in the 
Territory, as to what kind of statehood they want, has been gone over. 
Of course 3'ou understand, gentlemen of the committee, that the peo- 
ple of the Territory have never had a chance to express their desire 
as to the form or kind of statehood that they^ desire. 

All I can say to you would be from my personal experience, my 
personal acquaintance with men throughout the Territory-. I have 
lived and done business, I think, in about eight counties in Oklahoma 
and in four towns in Indian Territory. I have been engaged in the 
banking business there and at this tima I own bank stock in seven 
counties in Oklahoma: I own bank stock in one town in Indian Terri- 
tory; I own real propert}^ in three counties of Oklahoma. I have come 
in contact with business men, with the professional men, and I have 
come in contact with men from all parts of the Territory, and par- 
ticularly in the last two or three years, because this question has 
appealed to me as being of most vital importance to the people who 
make up the Commonwealth there, and I have taken occasion to ask 
them their views and to get as near as 1 could the sentiment of the 
people. 

In m}^ county there are about 6,100 voters. I think at our last 
election we polled 6,000-odd votes. I would sa}' as a conservative 
estimate that out of 6,000 voters in my county there are not a hundred 
to-day in favor of separate statehood. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I will go 
the gentleman from Oklahoma County one better and tell him that I only 
know of one within my personal knowledge who is in favor of separate 
statehood, and that is Mr. C. M. Cade, who is a Republican in politics 
and is a good friend of mine. There was another man who once talked 
of separate statehood whom I knew, but he has had a change of heart 
and has become converted recently and taken the other position. I 
am familiar with the conditions in Oklahoma County and I think the 
people there are almost unanimously in favor of single statehood. 

In Logan County, the count}^ in Avhich the Territorial capital is 
located, I think the}" are for double statehood. Guthrie, of course, 
is the headquarters for the Federal appointees of the Territory': they 
all live there and have their offices there and have their friends there. 
The population of Logan County is largely made up of colored popu- 
lation, and it is strongly Republican. Without casting any reflections 
on our Republican friends, they vote the Republican ticket and are 
controlled by the Republican machine. In the last election the}" 
hollered '* double statehood" in that county. I was there, and I know 
it is a matter of statistics, for 50 per cent of the voters are colored. I 
was there at the time thev were talking double statehood, and they 
were indorsing the Fh^nn bill. They were led to believe that the pro- 
visions in the Flvnn bill that the schools should be open to all the 
children in the Territory meant mixed schools in the Territory: they 
believed that; they talked it on the streets and in their meetings; they 



192 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

were told that by the Republican politicians. And they carried that 
county by a large majorit}^ That is the stronghold of the office- 
holders of that countj^, and the}^ are for double statehood. 

Now, let us look at Kingfisher. I used to reside there and am well 
acquainted there. I used to have property there. I believe in that 
county the sentiment is about evenly divided. They claim they are 
strong for double statehood. It is a strong Republican county. They 
voted for Mr. McGuire, and they should have voted for him, but the 
fact that they voted for him can not be regarded as a criterion as to 
the question of statehood, single or double, although it is a criterion 
as to the political situation there. 

Mr. Thayee. You speak of the colored population there. Are they 
Indians or negroes, or what? 

Mr. Maxey. Negroes; old-fashioned negroes. 

Briefly, I would sa}^ in conclusion that I believe single statehood 
would mean a more rapid development of our mutual resources; that 
it would mean better and larger State buildings, better eleemosynary 
institutions, and better State credit; that it would mean more rapid 
development of our commercial interests, larger banking institutions, 
and a better government. I believe that double statehood would 
mean that Congress desired to place a check upon our development 
and growth. Organize two States out of Indian Territory and Okla- 
homa and 3^ou organize in Oklahoma a rotten borough, formed after 
the mold of Delaware, Rhode Island, and Nevada, whose judiciary 
will be dominated by politicians, whose Senators will be elected by 
special interests, and our Commonwealth will be for all time to come 
controlled by a coterie of politicians, which is the situation in all of 
the small States. We do not want to organize anj^ more Nevadas in 
the West. We want a large State that we and the nation will be 
proud of for all time to come. 

I am sorry I have not time to go into this matter fuller, but I know 
that I would bore 3^ou if I continued, and I will conclude my remarks 
by saying that I hope 3^ou will consider this proposition from a mate- 
rial standpoint. We believe that it is a question that should be sep- 
arated forever from the domain of partisan politics. We believe that 
it is a business question, and should be settled on business principles; 
and if 3^ou look at it that way we believe you will conclude that it is 
better for the nation; that it is better for the people of both Territo- 
ries to organize one large State than it is to organize two little rotten 
boroughs. 

The Chairman. We have been verv much interested in your state- 
ment. Now, gentlemen of the committee, there is a large delegation 
from Oklahoma here. I presume it would be impossible for the com- 
mittee to hear each man composing this delegation, but the Chair would 
suggest, if there be no objection, in fairness to this delegation, that the 
roll of the delegation be called and that each man shall rise in his 
place when his name is called and state his name in full and his resi- 
dence and occupation and his opinion on the question of joint or sepa- 
rate statehood. I suggest that Mr. Jones call the roll of the gentle- 
men comprising the delegation who are present. 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Robbins? 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 193 

STATEMENT OF MR. H. P. ROBBINS, EDITOR DAILY NEWS, SOUTH 

M'ALESTER, IND. T, 

Mr. Chairman, I am the editor of the DaiW News of South McAles- 
ter, which is the old headquarters of the separate-statehood movement. 
There were maps made of the town the same as maps were made of 
Duluth, with the sky coming down at equidistance on all sides, and 
giving seventeen reasons, each of which seemed to be suiEcient, why 
South McAlester should be made the capital of the State. 

1 come here to-daj^, sent by men of all political beliefs and all profes- 
sions, to say that we want the Robinson bill, with the fifteenth section of 
the Qua}^ bill added^, making alienable lands taxable. We want it so that 
the Indian can have not onhr schools for his own children after the 
tribal school funds disappear, but so he can have some inducement to 
white renters of intelligence to come in there and improve his own 
lands, not only that which he has sold, but the land which he has to 
rent, if he wishes it developed. 

I believe if you pass the Robinson bill, with the fifteenth section of 
the Quay bill addecl, we can go back to South McAlester, the most pop- 
ulous part of the Territorv, which, according to the last census, 
embraces 50,000 people within a radius of 21- miles, or 110,000 people 
within a radius of 12 miles, and gee practically a unanimous indorsement 
of such a measure. 

In m}^ capacity as editor I have attended all the conventions, not only 
on the subject of statehood, but various other conventions held in 
our Territory in the last three 3^ears. I have been to the bankers' 
association, and I can say to you, gentlemen, that the bankers were 
almost unanimous for joint statehood. I have been to the law3^ers' 
association, and I can say to you, gentlemen, that there were only 
three votes in the law3'ers' association of Indian Territory against the 
resolution declaring for joint statehood. 

I have attended the doctors', the dentists', and the editors' associa- 
tions of Indian Territory, and they are practically unanimous for joint 
statehood. I have been at the convention of the retail hardware and 
implement dealers of the Indian Territorj^ and they voted for union 
with Oklahoma. Most of our lodges have a single jurisdiction, and it 
is the same way with the churches. The Presbyterians have a single 
synod. The two great Methodist churches each embrace both Terri- 
tories in a single conference. One of them is called the Indian Mission 
Conference, and we can read history in the name. It reminds 3'ou that 
we are not asking to be tacked on to Oklahoma, but are praj^ing that 
}'ou restore the original boundaries of Indian Territorv, giving us back 
what we had before Oklahoma was opened for settlement, xlnd, b}^ 
the wa3% it was on petition of the people of Indian Territor3^ that 
Oklahoma was opened to settlement. Hence righth'-directed senti- 
ment is with us instead of for the creation of a p3'gm3^ Indian State, 
out of half of that splendid domain. 

It is true that some of our people are a little afraid of the political 
tricks of Oklahomans, those tricks that Mr. Jones has told 3^ou about. 
We have heard how the3' tell their constituents one thing and then 
come here and tell the members of this committee another thing. We 
know how their statehood platforms have been Janus faced, and con- 
sequenth^ the more timid of our folk are a trifle ''leer3^'' of Oklahoma 
politicians, for our people are honest people. 

OKLA 13 



194 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

I suspect from 3^our amusement that it has been claimed here that 
Indian Territory is the hotbed of crime. Why, gentlemen, if you 
passed a law in Massachusetts, turning what is there regarded as a 
harmless divertisement into a felony, as you have done in Indian Ter- 
ritor}'^, the old Bay State's biggest county wouldn't hold her peniten- 
tiar}'. 

Mr. Thayer. What do you refer to as a felony ? 

Mr. RoBBiNS. I refer to the fact that if a man should bring half a 
pint of liquor into Indian Territory for his own use, or even should he 
introduce medicated liquors, those panaceas so extensively praised in 
our metropolitan papers b}^ distinguished ex-Congressmen with expec- 
tations, he can be arrested and sent to prison under the law. Viola- 
tions of the liquor law are responsible for a large part of the convic- 
tions in our courts. I do not know that I blame those people so much 
for violating that particular law, though its practical results are good. 
It was a law that they had no part in making. They have no way of 
securing its repeal. The}^ are free-born American citizens, and they 
know that that law was passed for the protection of the Indians. They 
are not Indians, and they feel that they are not doing wrong if they 
bring in whisky or other drinks for their own use. It is a form of 
casuistry which is natural. The violation of the liquor law, as I have 
said, explains the great number of criminal cases. 

I have lived in a great many towns in the United States; I have 
lived in one of the best towns in Mr. Lloyd's district; but I want to 
say that my lot was never pitched in a community where there is as 
general observance of law, where there is as much protection for life 
and liberty, and where purity is regarded higher than in the commu- 
nity of South McAlester, the center of what would be naturally 
regarded as a rough district, filled with a mining population that 
hipped out 2,000,000 tons of coal last year. 

In conclusion, I want to say that our people want statehood, prefer- 
ably the Kobinson bill with the fifteenth section of the Quay bill 
added, so that country districts can have public schools and the chil- 
dren be given a chance to procure an education. The appalling illiter- 
acy mentioned (with exaggeration here) is confined to the poor tenants 
of the Indians in the country districts of the Territory. If you visit 
the villages and cities you will find that the people, in spite of the 
fact that the country has been handicapped by a lack of schools, are as 
alert and moral as the people anywhere in the United States. You 
can not go into the streets of our city and throw a rock without hit- 
ting a graduate of Harvard or Yale or Ann Arbor or the University of 
Chicago or some other college. 

A Voice. What are your politics? 

Mr. Bobbins. My political afiiliations are Republican. 

Mr. KoDEY. How does that Territory happen to be so Democratic 
if they can not have whisky ? 

Mr. RoBBiNS. Nobody knows what the politics of the Territory is. 
There is a man in our community who is 40 years of age and has 
amassed a quarter of a million dollars, but next spring he will vote 
for alderman and that will be the first ballot he has ever cast. Nobod}' 
knows the politics of Indian Territor}^ We have some big surprises 
to ofier our Democratic friends there. 

Mr. Jones called the name of Mr. Williams. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 195 



STATEMENT OF MR. R. T. WILLIAMS, OF GREER COUNTY, OKLA. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I moved to Okla- 
homa about five years ago and the people have been kind enough to let 
me live there ever since. I have lived in a number of different towns. 
I am with the Southern Lj^ceum Bureau, and when I was notified 
yesterday that I might be expected to say something here I endeavored 
to persuade m}^ friend Chenowith from my town to do the talking, 
for I have heard that a cause is often further advanced b}" silent 
advocates than by some of its most strenuous friends. You have 
heard about the man who gave |50 to have his wife's parrot taught to 
talk, and then after the parrot had learned to talk he said, ''And now 
how much will 3'ou take to teach the confounded thing to shut up ? " 

So, gentlemen, I can onh^ speak for Greer Count3% and that county 
is almost as large as some of the States in the Union, and I will say 
this: That about the 27th of January some dodgers were thrown 
around announcing that a mass meeting was to be held at the city hall. 
Our people knew nothing of the nature of the mass meeting", and we 
went there and the meeting elected a committee of five. That com- 
mittee was to select two to represent them with this delegation from 
Oklahoma. It is one of the grandest Territories over which Uncle 
Sam has ever been the fortunate guardian, and I want to sa}' that she 
is so broad in mind, generous of heart, and so charitable, that when 
she knocks for admission to this great American Union she does not 
come in the spirit of selfishness, but in the spirit of Him who told us 
and taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves. 

And, gentlemen, I want to say that it is strictly for the business 
and commercial interests of our great country that we apph^ to this 
Fifty-eighth Congress of the United States of America for admission 
as one great State, including Indian Territor}^ and Oklahoma. The 
Indian Territor}^ needs Oklahoma and we need the Indian Territor3^ 
Look at our broad, fertile lands which produce wheat, corn, oats, cot- 
ton, and all kinds of grain. The Indian Territory needs that grain. 
Look at the rich, timbered lands of the Indian Territor3\ We need 
their lumber to build our granaries and our homes. We need the 
coal of the Indian Territory to fire the furnaces of our factories, which 
are springing up almost as spontaneous!}^ as new republics. Gentle- 
men, the Indian Territory- needs us and we need the Indian Territory, 
and I want to say to you that it is not for an}^ political reason that we 
come before you; but the Democrats and Republicans of my county 
stand shoulder to shoulder, heart to heart, and hand to hand upon this 
great issue and say to you give us statehood and give us joint state- 
hood or w^e perish. [Applause.] 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. Lloyd. What is the sentiment of Greer Count}' ? 

Mr. Williams. Joint statehood. I want to say that in this mass 
meeting of our citizens there was an equal number almost of the 
Republicans and Democrats, and our committee was instructed for 
single statehood unalterabh'. 

Mr. Jones called the name of Mr. Humphry. 



196 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAKOMA. 



STATEMENT OF MR. T. C. HUMPHRY, OF SOUTH M'ALESTER. 

My name is T. C. Humphry; I am from South McAlester; I am a law- 
yer, a Methodist in religion, and a Republican in politics. [Applause.] 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in coming before 
you, favoring the union of Oklahoma and Indian Territory, I am not 
unmindful of the many speeches and the able arguments that have been 
made before you. I shall only take, as the gentleman has allowed me, 
a minute or two to express the sentiments of one of the residents of 
Indian Territor3^ 

We have been hearing from Oklahoma, and Indian Territory wants 
to be heard from. 

The opposition by the Oklahomaites that oppose the union of Indian 
Territory and Oklahoma is on the ground that Indian Territor}^ would 
not defray its part of the expenses of running a government if one 
were to be created. I will say that, as far as the raising of taxation is 
concerned, that is something that depends upon Congressional or 
legislative acts. That is the power to be granted by the Government 
hereafter. But at the present time we have 2,500 miles of railroad 
running through the Indian Territory, part of this future great State; 
we have 57 coal mines in our Indian Territory, and I want to raise 
my friend Robbins a million, because statistics show that during the 
year ending June 30, 1903, the output of coal from the Indian Terri- 
tory amounted to 3,343,986 tons of coal. 

Mr. RoBBiNS. The gentleman will pardon me, I was simply referring 
to the coal shipped from South McAlester. There were 2,000,000 tons 
shipped from that place alone. No doubt you are correct as to the 
figures for the whole Territory. We have over 300 towns in the 
Indian Territory inhabited by intelligent and deserving people. 

Mr. Humphry. We have 80 national banks in the Indian Territory, 
and I will not detain you by reciting our wealth and our resources. 
You have already heard a good deal about them. But there is one 
thing I want to call your attention to, and that is that when a call to 
arms was made the Indian Territory and the Oklahoma Territory were 
there. When President McKinle}^ called for soldiers these two Terri- 
tories responded, and when that illustrious hero and patriot, who is 
now in the White House, took his famous Rough Riders to Santiago 
the Indian Territory was there. In the charge at Las Guasimas the 
Indian Territory was put in the front, and the first man that fired a 
gun was from the Indian Territory. 

The blood of Indian Territory was blended with the blood of New 
York at San Juan Hill in defense of the flag and the country, and 
wherever duty has called, whether it has been in Cuba or the Philip- 
pine Islands, Indian Territory has not been found wanting. At the 
battle of San Jacinto, where Logan gave up his life; through the 
mountains of Luzon, where Colonel Hare and Colonel Howe marched 
in search of Gilmore and the American prisoners, the Indian Terri- 
tor}^ was there, and no matter where duty has called, the Indian Terri- 
tory has been there; and so I say, gentlemen, the people of Indian 
Territory are good enough for anything. [Applause.] 

Mr. JoNps. I will now call upon Judge McAtee. 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 197 



STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LIND M'ATEE. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the impression that is strongest in 
m}^ mind is that the delegates from Oklahoma and Indian Territory 
owe a vote of thanks to this committee for the courtes}" of this com- 
mittee in listening to us and according to us the time it has given us. 
I have lived and been identified with the Territor}^ for about twenty 
years; it is twent3^-one j^ears now. My home at present is in Oklahoma 
City. I presided on the bench for eight years, however, in the north- 
western district of the Territory. 

The Chaikman. Comprising what counties, Judge? 

Mr. McAtee. Including Garfield, Grant, Woods, Woodward (part of 
the time), Da}^, Dewey — about a fourth or fifth part of the Territory. 

I believe that the people of that country have thought all along that 
eventually Congress would give us joint statehood. The question has 
not been agitated very much where I have been; it was not a very 
general topic of conversation among the people, but my belief is that 
it has never entered into the minds of the people to doubt that even- 
tuall}^ Congress would give to the people of that country single state- 
hood, including the Indian Territory and Oklahoma as one State. As 
I have said, it never has been a matter of very much discussion, 
except when bills have been introduced here and when you have had 
hearings at Washington. That is, I do not think the idea of single 
statehood was talked of very much until the bill was introduced carv- 
ing out Oklahoma alone for a State. 

I dislike very much taking the time of the committee. I think the 
committee is probably tired and wants to get back to their work in 
the House. You are probabl}^ oppressed 

The Chairman. We are far from oppressed. Judge, and we are 
very much interested in your statement. 

Mr. McAtee. I dislike to take the time of the committee, because 
the matter has been so fully and so strongly presented, and I scarcely 
think that I can add any force to the statements which have already 
I)een made. 

A fact has been referred to since I have come in of which I was 
ignorant. I accepted it as a fact, as it was stated as a fact. I think 
the inference was thrown out that the moral character and the intelli- 
gence of the people of Indian Territory must be below that of Okla- 
homa, for reasons that the court expenses are so much greater at 
Muscogee and in the Indian Territory than they are in Oklahoma. 
Was that the inference? If it is I think the committee ought to hear 
a statement of facts on that subject. 

The Chairman. Someone assumed that there had been such an 
inference. 

Mr. Lloyd. I do not think we are in an}^ trouble about that. 

The Chairman. I do not think the committe is troubled over that 
question, however. 

Mr. McAtee. All I meant to state was this: In 1891, 1892, 1893, 
1891, 1895, and 1896 a great many people were arrested in Oklahoma 
for the trifling offense of (tutting red cedar timber, which was con- 
trary to law. The people cut that timber for the purpose of sustaining 
life in a distressing period of suffering, in a period of almost famine. 
The marshal's office and some of the United States commissioners 



198 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

of the Territory availed themselves of a Federal statute imposing a 
penalty upon that offense, making it a criminal offense, and so from 
1891, when the expenses of the administration of justice in Oklahoma, 
amounting to something under |100,000 — I think it was about $80,000; 
it is a long time since I have thought of this — up to 1896 the marshal's 
office and some United States commissoners who were riding the Ter- 
ritory raised the total amount of expenses for the administration of 
justice through the marshal of the Territory up to |37l,000. 

Mr. RoDEY. Was not that so general throughout all the Territories 
that the Department of Justice had to caution commissioners against 
bringing up these cases to get fees ? 

Mr. McAtee. I do not know about the other Territories. 

The total expenditure for the administration of justice, including 
compensation for marshals and clerks of the United States courts 
throughout the United States, amounted to $1,200,000, while the 
United States commissioners and marshals of Oklahoma, by this proc- 
ess of arresting people for cutting red-cedar timber and earning mile- 
age on those cases, were pumping out of the Federal Treasury $371,000' 
per annum. They were spending about one-third or one-fourth part 
of the total amount of the appropriation which Congress made for the 
administration of justice throughout the Union, not only the United 
States proper, but including Alaska. 

I sa}^ this advisedly, because I know about the facts. The attention 
of Mr. Harmon was called to it. Mr. Harmon was then Attorney- 
General. He caused this condition of affairs to be immediately reme- 
died, and inside of six months after he began the investigation the 
expenses were reduced from |374,000 to about $60,000. I think they 
have never exceeded the latter sum since then. 

During the early period of the administration of justice in Oklahoma 
we had, of course, a vast number of criminals to deal with, who had 
been dumped out of the adjoining States, or perhaps had dumped 
themselves into Oklahoma. I may say that in the early period during 
which I presided on the bench in the district I have referred to, the 
population of that district did not probabl}^ exceed 50,000 or 60,000. 

1 presided during eight years in 30 first-class murder cases. I call 
them first-class murder cases because they were genuine killings — kill- 
ings for a purpose and deliberate; and I presided at trials for other 
felonies in proportion. All Eastern men will recognize that that was 
an awful condition of affairs. 1 presume the other judges in the Ter- 
ritory presided over a proportionate number of murder cases and 
other criminal trials. 1 will say that judges there in that period must 
have presided over from 110 to 160 murder trials. And yet that did 
not cause the enormous draft on the Federal Treasury that was caused 
b}^ the worthlessness of the marshal's office. The marshal of Okla- 
homa had 130 deputies going around over the Territory drawing 
mileage and costing this large sum of money that I have mentioned, 
engaged in chasing these timber cutters, almost all their work being 
running these men who were cutting timber, which was simply a tech- 
nical violation of the Federal statute. Those marshals were doing 
well and they were the most cheerful set of people in the Territory. 

Another law under which a great many arrests have been made is 
the liquor law. That has been referred to. 

All that went to fatten the marshals' fees. 

About the States themselves, when the Louisiana purchase was seg- 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 199 

regated and the outlines of the States made, Kansas and Nebraska 
and the Indian Territory were made of about equal area, with some 
regard being paid to the natural boundaries in the way of mountains 
and rivers. It happened that in 1889, when the Congress carved out 
the Territor}^ of Oklahoma, all the eastern portion of the Territory 
occupied b}^ the Osages, the Cherokees, the Creeks, the Chickasaws, 
the Choctaws, and the Seminoles were held by the Indians by qualified 
or base fee. It was known that it would take a long time to eliminate 
the Indian interests, because they held it by such a firm title. From 
1836 the police part of the Territory was held by what was practically 
a fee-simple title. 

In order to let the white people in at all, to have the benefit of the 
lands, the Congress carved out that portion which was not occupied. 
It was Indian lands — that is, in which the Cherokees and Choctaws 
and Creeks and others had a slight interest, the interest of crossing or 
the interest of passing over the lands. The Government bought that 
and turned it into Oklahoma. But the circumstances then were merely 
incidental. They did not refer at all to the making of States, but 
wholly to the convenience of the time, and therefore the present limits 
of Oklahoma have nothing to do with the making of a new integer in 
this Union at all. Those limits are a mere accident arising from the 
fact that the western portion of the Territory was available for set- 
tlement for the white race and the Government could take that. 

The Dawes Commission was appointed and they have done their 
work as speedily as anybody thought they could possibl}" do it at the 
time the Commission was appointed, and now that eastern portion of 
the Territory is available for statehood. Why should a trilling State 
be carved out of one-half of a Territory ? 

Wh}^ would you cut off western Kansas and make a State of it; why 
would you cut off western Nebraska and make a State of it? Why not 
adopt that S3^stem which has been so ably stated here hj all these 
gentlemen, which will make one strong State — a self-respecting State, 
not an impoverished State? We are all Americans out there; we 
come from all the States of the Union. We are pJl working together 
and there is no difference except that some are Democrats and some 
are Republicans, and, as my brother here has said, some are Metho- 
dists and some are something else. The people of the Territory want 
single statehood. I think everybody wants single statehood except, 
possibly, some politicians and some who are in office — and maybe some 
who are out of office who want to get in — and some that think they 
can control the western portion of the State and go to the Senate. 
There are some like that who may want the thing fixed along these 
temporar}^ lines which the United States fixed a few years ago for the 
sake of appropriating all available lands to the people under the home- 
stead law. They may want two States divided in that way to last 
forever. In my judgment it is only a matter of personal convenience 
to some of those gentlemen who think that they will be able to control 
it for their own use. 

Mr. Humphry. Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that I want to 
express, and that is that I believe every man, woman, and child in 
Choctaw Nation is against this piecemeal business; I do not believe 
the}^ will stand it. We do not want any of it to go unless we all go 
on the ground floor. 



200 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

The Chairman. Judge McAtee, I do not know whether the reporter 
got 3^our name and residence, etc. 

Mr. McAtee. I was nominated by President Cleveland to the judge- 
ship. I was a Cleveland Democrat. I did not follow all the curves 
which occurred in the Democratic party afterwards, and I think I 
remained about the same; but I find more people of my belief in the 
Eepublican party, and 1 could not flock by myself, and so I affiliated 
with the set of people whom I regarded as having the views which I 
entertained. 

STATEMENT OF ME. A. GRANT EVANS, OF MUSCOGEE, IHD. T. 

Mr. Evans. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am 
president of the Presbyterian college at Muscogee. I went to the 
Indian Territory in 1884 and for five years was a missionarj^ among the 
full -blood Cherokee. For the past six years 1 have been president of 
the Henry Kendall College at Muscogee. 

My interest in this movement is very largely the educational one. 
A little over a year ago it was difiicult to arouse much enthusiasm on 
the statehood movement. There had been some conventions held. 
Some were received cooll3^ as one was received which we had in South 
McAlester. The publication of the Beveridge or Nelson bill, which 
was the first proposition which came to the people of the Indian Ter- 
ritory for statehood on equal terms, caused a wave of enthusiasm there. 

We had meetings, not merely conventions of the Territories, but 
meetings of town councils and chambers of commerce throughout the 
Territory, at w^hich meetings the people of the different towns were 
practically unanimous in speaking and in favoring the passage of that 
bill, because it would give us immediate relief, especialty in the matter 
of schools for all classes of people. It is in the interests of these 
schools, and in the interest also of taking off' the restriction from the 
sale of the propert}^ beyond the homestead of the Indians, which 
will enable a large number of people to live in the rural districts, and 
which will break down the distinction which is working unfortunately 
for the Indians in those places, which is making the Indian a rather 
hated member of the community. It is in relation to these facts that I 
am particularly interested in this legislation, and in favor of the admis- 
sion of the two Territories as a State. J 

It is in the interest of the bringing of the Indian full bloods into 
common brotherhood and citizenship that we are anxious something 
should be done at once, something on the line of the Quay bill, which 
would be an immediate relief from this condition as to the alienation 
of the land outside of the homestead and the school position, which I 
believe the people of Indian Territory really need. A great many of 
them have wanted a separate State if they could get it, but they are 
satisfied to give that up in view of the immediate benefit that will come 
to them from a common statehood, that will give them common schools 
in which the hundreds of thousands of white children for whom no 
schools are now provided may find elementary education. Otherwise, 
every year that is being spent in a delay over that is spent in the 
creation of an illiterate and largeh^ a criminal class. It is our hope 
that something in the line of the Quay bill will be given us, and that 
we will be allowed to develop the Indian schools instead of buying 
them out. The treaties provide that the Indian schools funds must 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 201 

be divided up and given to the individual Indians. Instead of that we 
hope Congress may take some steps to preserve those schools under 
the Interior Department during the year or two before any State sys- 
tem can be put into operation. 

That seems to us the important feature of the present situation. 

The Chairman. At what time will the Indian schools cease by law? 

Mr. Evans. It is hard to say. I was speaking to one of the mem- 
bers of the Commission yesterday and he says he does not see how the 
allotment of the money could begin; that the moment the Congress 
makes an appropriation to settle the money claims the school funds 
must be called in. The moment Congress makes the appropriation it 
withdraws the school fund, with the exception of the Seminoles, who 
have reserved half a million dollars to maintain two boarding schools. 
That is the only exception. I have gone into the matter with the Com- 
missioners and they say it has not been the purpose of the Government 
to maintain tribal schools, and as soon as the money is appropriated to 
pa}^ the the money claims of the Indians the school funds will cease to 
exist for present purposes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. RQY STAFFORB. 

Mr. Stafford. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. I am a publisher of 
the Democratic daily newspaper at Oklahoma City. 

I want to say a word or two in regard to the sentiment in Oklahoma 
of the question of joint or separate statehood. As a matter of fact, 
there has not been a single declaration of the people of the Territory 
for separate statehood. Every statehood convention ever held there 
has simply asked for joint statehood, or, as Mr. Lewis* has said, for 
statehood with such boundaries as Congress will give. The only time 
there has been a declaration for separate statehood was at a Republi- 
can committee meeting last June. At Guthrie, when the platform on 
which Mr. McGuire was elected was adopted, the declaration for state- 
hood could be construed in two ways. On the east side it was inter- 
preted as a joint statehood declaration, and on the west side it was 
interpreted as a separate statehood declaration. 

The Democratic party demanded joint statehood. Therefore the 
people on the east side thought in voting for McGuire they were vot- 
ing for one State, while the people on the west side were told that Mr. 
McGuire had been nominated on a platform calling for separate state- 
hood. As a matter of fact, except for that course which was pursued, 
he would not have been here by 10,000 votes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. J. A. CHENOWITH, OF LEGER, GREER 

COUNTY, OKLA. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not wish to 
take up your time. I would be very glad to reiterate a great deal 
that has been said here, but I deem it unnecessary to do so. 

I am in the hardware and implement business and have 11 stores in 
Oklahoma, one of which is a wholesale store. We claim to be Ameri- 
can citizens, and we come to you asking jon to help us out in this 
matter and give us statehood. We need your help very badly. Let 
me give j^ou a little illustration. Last winter I paid $12 a ton for 
all coal that I burned in ni}^ stores to warm our customers when they 



202 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

came in. This year it is not quite so bad — we have not had to pay 
quite so much for coal; but without what we claim down there and 
what we contend for — joint statehood, or something to build on as a 
foundation — it is impossible to regulate any of those matters. When 
we get joint statehood — and I hope we will — I want to help to regulate 
and adjust my friend, Brother Jones, in the railroad matter a little. 
One reason why coal is of such great importance to us is because we 
have not any other fuel except coal. So that means a great deal to us. 

Let me give you another illustration of how we have to pay high 
railroad rates for freight. A little while ago a man came into one of 
our stores and said, ''I want 3^ou to order a piece for my plow." I 
ordered it and it came to Leger, Okla., $1.70 freight — 11 for a piece 
weighing about 1^ pounds; 70 cents for transferring it from one rail- 
road to the other. 

These things can not be adjusted at present, but if we get statehood 
we hope to be able to adjust them by a railroad commission, just as 
Texas and other States are adjusting their freight rates. 

I want to thank you for this hearing, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. 
You have been very patient, and we all appreciate it very much. I 
thank you, one and all, for your attention. 

Mr. Jones. Would you state about what per cent of the people of 
Greer County would be for single or joint statehood? 

Mr. Chenowith. Positively and honestly — and if I were on oath I 
would make the same statement— if there is a gentleman in Greer 
Count}^, Okla., a county which is 57 miles in extent from east to west 
and 114 miles from north to south, who is in favor of two States I do 
not know him. The people there stand as a unit, Republicans and 
Democrats. 1 have a letter in my pocket from one of the strongest 
Republicans in our county to Mr. Brownlow, of Tennessee, asking 
for his assistance. That letter is from one of the strongest Republi- 
cans out there. He says, '' For God's sake give us some help and help 
us now; we need your assistance." He called me up on the telephone 
just before I left for Washington, and he said, ''When you get to 
Washington you must stay there until 3''ou can bring back some word 
of encouragement about joint statehood, or you may stay there until 
the ants carry you out through the keyhole in the door." [Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HOIS. J. H. GRANT, FORMER GOVERNOR OF THE 
PROVINCE OF LEYTE, P. I. 

Mr. Grant. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, by a supreme exertion 
of will power 1 think I am able to conform to the rule and simply 
state that I am J. H. Grant, lawyer; am in hearty accord with the 
sentiments expressed here this morning, and that the people through- 
out both Territories, so far as I have observed, are almost unanimous 
in favoring joint statehood. [Applause.] 

Mr. eloNES. I will next introduce Mr. Palmer, from the Osage Indian 
Reservation. 

STATEMENT OF MR. J. F. PALMER. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: I am an Osage Indian, a farmer, and 
a lawyer. 

Mr. Robinson. Also please give what position you held as chair- 
man of some meeting. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 203 

Mr. Palmer. Some time ago there was a single-statehood conven- 
tion held at Oklahoma Cit}^, of which I was chairman. That was a 
little over a 3'ear ago. 

I have attended two meetings of this committee and have listened 
to the statements made, and was ver}^ much pleased to hear what I did 
hear, and I would not burden joii now with anything, except that I 
wish to say something which has not been brought out here. 1 refer 
to the fact that the Osage Nation— and I am an Osage Indian — is the 
onh^ part of Oklahoma Territory that has not 3"et been allotted — the 
onl}^ place where the Indians hold their land in common — and that a 
delegation is now in your city, composed of 18 members, sent here by 
the Osages to enter into a final settlement with the Government in 
reference to their lands and their money. 

It appears like these other gentlemen represent other sections of 
Oklahoma Territory. They have informed you as to the desire of the 
people living in their respective sections. This delegation that is here 
in the city of Washington now has requested me to say to this com- 
mittee, if an opportunity was afforded, that as to the different meas- 
ures pending here in Congress or being discussed before this 
committee — that is, the Qua}" bill, the Robinson bill, or the McGuire 
bill — that the Osage people are opposed to the McGuire bill to the 
extent that if there is an}" likelihood of its passing they would ask this 
committee to recommend that the Osage Nation be attached to the 
Indian Territory, and if Indian Territory is to become a separate State 
they wish to belong to that State. 

This delegation, consisting of 18 members, represents every faction 
and ever}" class of people living in the Osage Nation. There are some 
12,000 or 14,000 people there, about 1,900 of whom are Indians. 

Now, as to the other bills — the Quay bill or the Robinson bill — the 
Osages prefer the Robinson bill, if it could be amended b}^ putting in 
it one feature of the Qua}' bill, and that is the amount of money 
for educational purposes. If Mr. Robinson's bill should contain a 
^10,000,000 clause instead of a 15,000,000 clause it would certainly be 
the most acceptable to the Osage people. 

I say that for the season that the reference in the Quay bill to the 
Indians — that is, having one of those Senators an Indian by descent — 
causes unnecessary and unjust criticism of the Indians. The Indians 
themselves are asking for no such favor as that. We hope to see a 
United States Senator, or more than one Senator, from that section of 
the country, but we do not want it incorporated in any bill. We want 
the people there generally to elect that Senator, if we have a Senator. 

I do not know anything further to say to you except that I have 
been in the Territory of Oklahoma for twenty-eight years, and I have 
a wide acquaintance in both of those Territories, and I am firmly con- 
vinced that the great majority of the people of both those Territories 
favor single or joint statehood. 

I would say, knowing that the Hon. Bird S. McGuire has a bill here 
in which he is particularly interested; that Mr. McGuire was a boy in 
the Osage Nation; that he was one of the champion postmakers there, 
and that our Indian boys hunted with him and fished with him, wres- 
tled with him and fought with him. I wish to say in reference to Mr. 
McGuire that we believe him to be one of the best equipped, swiftest, 
all-round Congressmen among the members of the Fifty-eighth Con- 
gress, and I do not wish to say anything against any measure that he 



204 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

is particular!}^ interested in, and I would not do so were it not for the 
fact that in this 100-yard dash he has entered upon he has started off 
on the wrong leg and has lost his stride. [Laughter and applause.] 

I thank 3^ou, gentlemen. 

Mr. Jones. We will now hear from Davis, of Lawton, which is in 
the Kiowa and Comanche country. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LEWIS DAVIS, OF LAWTON. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I shall detain you but a few minutes. 
Perhaps 1 had better begin by saying that m}^ name is Lewis Davis; 
that I came to Oklahoma at the opening of the Cherokee Outlet; that 
I was what is generally known as a carpetbagger sent there from the 
outside over the protest of the people on the inside. [Laughter.] I 
thought it was eminently right and proper at that time, and I have not 
altogether gotten over that idea, but in the course of human events I 
had to vacate. While I was in office, like man}^ other gentlemen, I 
rather believed in two States; but after I was out, notwithstanding 
the fact that 1 am a Baptist, and a ''hard-shell," I had a change of 
heart; I fell from grace a little, but now I am full fledged for single 
statehood. 

I lived in the northern portion of Oklahoma for a number of years, 
and was registrar at the United States land office. I believe that 
land office had more business before it than any other land office ever 
did before or, perhaps, an}^ other will ever have again, as it was the 
last one of importance in the eastern portion of the country where lit- 
igation was heavy, and for four and a half years I sat and heard con- 
test cases, and met with all kinds and classes of people. The records 
at the general land offices will show that I was in evidence down there 
for quite a while, and of course I became acquainted with a great many 
people. 

After the opening of the new country and after I had the misfor- 
tune to be turned out — and, strange as it may seem, they found a good 
man to continue the business, if not a better, who took my place — I 
went to the new country, to the Kiowa and Comanche country, and 
settled at Lawton. I have been engaged constantly in the practice of 
law before the land office, and litigation has been heavy, and I think I 
have had about as much of it to do as anybody else. 

Besides that business I have looked a little after Mr. Jones's rail- 
road town sites and other railroad town sites situated on railroads that 
have gone through that country. I have been constantly at the land 
office and have had considerable business before the Departments for 
people of that country, and from the opening of that country in August, 
1901, to this present day if 1 have ever heard one single man express 
himself in favor of two "States for these two Territories 1 can not 
remember it. I have been in contact with the people there, and while, as 
Judge McAfee said, it has not been so universally discussed, it has been 
talked about here and there, and the concensus of opinion generally is 
that one State is what Congress will eventually give us; the general 
opinion has been that it will be one State and one State only is desir- 
able. The other proposition has been more in the nature of a jest 
than an3^thing else; I do not know of anyone that has ever taken it 
seriously. 

Gentlemen, I thank you. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 205 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I think there is but one other gentleman 
that we will ask you to hear, and that is Mr. L. F. Lee. 

STATEMENT OF ME. L. F. LEE. 

Mr. Chairman, 1 am neither judge, newspaper man, or banker. I 
am not even a capitalist. I am a Republican from Oklahoma City. My 
name is L. F. Lee. I have been in the contracting business there for 
fourteen years. M}^ business has taken me to all parts of the Terri- 
tor}^, and I have necessarity come into contact with all classes of people, 
from the laborer to the mechanic, from the mechanic to the expert, 
from the expert to the engineer, from the engineer to the architect, 
and f]-om the architect to the business man and the capitalist, and all 
classes of people. 

In my observation throughout the Territory, I am like Mr. Davis. 
There is no one who takes this proposition of two States seriously. 
On the contrar}^, ever3^one I come into contact with is unanimous in 
sajdng that his preference is for a single State. I do not think they 
take the other proposition — the proposition of making two separate 
States out of the two Territories — seriously. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do 3"ou think that is true in Logan County? 

Mr. Lee. We do not operate very extensively in Logan County; it 
is south and east and west. Take it north of Logan County; take it in 
the Strip, that is, the old Cherokee Strip, and you will find that every- 
body there is favorable to joint statehood. Now, the only particular 
reason we have for wanting statehood down in that section of the 
country — the only particular reason the business men have for wanting 
statehood is for commercial reasons. To give you one idea, we are 
paying as much for lumber in Oklahoma as they are pa^dng for the 
same lumber that passes through Oklahoma to Chicag"o, Kansas City, 
Omaha, and St. Joe. We are paying from 3 cents to 5 cents a hun- 
dred more on this lumber than they are paying in these places named. 
For this reason, and many others along the same line, it is to our inter- 
est that we are looking to this Congress for single statehood, because 
it is necessary to the development of the country, and so long as we 
are under these conditions we have not the fullest development of our 
resources. I thank you. 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I will 
now introduce Mr. Stubblefield, who is the last speaker. 

The Chairman. Are there not others here? 

Mr. Jones. There are some others here, but we will not take up 
your time further. 

The Chairman. I do not think the committee desire to cut anybody 
off, and if there are other gentlemen who wish to be heard we will be 
glad to hear them. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN STUBBLEFIELD. 

Mr. Stubblefield. Mr. Chairman and patient members of the com- 
mittee, my name is John Stubblefield. 

Mr. Robinson. Please state 3^our residence and business. 

Mr. Stubblefied. My business is real estate; I have resided in 
Oklahoma City for three years. I went from the great State of Iowa 
out there, and in the last year and a half this matter of statehood has 



206 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

been discussed quite freety. I meet up with a great many men in my 
business, of all classes, those who have property to sell and also those 
who are buj^ing. We are discussing this question now, for it is the 
burning question there at the present time. It is the consensus of 
opinion among business men in our city that we should have joint 
statehood, the union of the two Territories into one State, the union 
of States, as we call it down there. From a commercial standpoint 
and from the standpoint of the best interests of that whole country, we 
think that joint statehood will be best. I desire to register my cor- 
roboration of what has been said. 

I do not wish to wear out your patience further. I might go on 
with a long harangue and thrash over the same material that has been 
thrashed over time and time again, but 1 know that would weary you; 
but this much I do wish to say, and that is that we are looking to you 
people, that are our people — we are looking to the Congress of the 
United States to admit over a million people. We are clamoring for 
admission, and we want the union of the Territories into one State, 
and we need it. That is the purpose that brought us here. I do not 
wish to weary you further. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. HARVEY, THE FIRST DELEGATE TO 
CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Harvey. My name is David A. Harvey; I reside at Wj^andotte, 
in the northeast corner of the Indian Territory, in what is known as 
the Quapaw Agency. The remnants of several little tribes occupy 
that country together with a large white population engaged in farm- 
ing and mining, the zinc fields from Joplin, Mo. , extending into that 
region. The so-called ''Indians" can scarce!}^ be distinguished from 
white people, either by speech, dress, or general intelligence. 

The people are greatly concerned in the matter of schools and public 
roads and can see no way to improve their conditions in these respects 
except by the organization of a State or Territorial government. 
They desire some law by which they can impose taxes for these pur- 
poses and for the construction of bridges. 

My own opinion is that the bill introduced b}^ Mr. Robinson, of 
Indiana, more nearly meets the requirements of the Indian Territory 
than any other. 

Mr. Jones. I would like to ask your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, to 
hear a word from Uncle Sam Powell. Everybod}?- knows him, and I 
am sure you will be willing to hear him for a moment. 

Mr. Powell. I have been before the committee about a month and 
I do not believe I have anything to say. I think I will file a brief 
statement if I am permitted to do so. 

Mr. Robinson. If that is satisfactory^ to 3^ou, very well; but if it is 
not we would like to hear 3^ou at some opportune time. Unless you 
have prepared your statement and can file it, we would be very glad 
to have you make a statement. 

Mr. Powell. I think what you want to get at most is what could 
be brought out by questions. 

Mr. Robinson. What do you say about that; do you desire to make 
a statement now? 

Mr. Po^VELL. I think I am about as tired as 3^ou gentlemen probably 
are. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 207 

Mr. Lloyd. Would 3^ou just as lief put it in writing'^ 

Mr. Powell. I do not care. I think ever3'thing has been gone 
over ver}^ thoroughly except a few facts, perhaps. 

The Chairman. Are there members of the committee who desire to 
submit questions to Mr. Powell? 

Mr. RoBiNSOX. I have some questions that I would like to ask him, 
but if we could have fifteen or twenty minutes some other da}^, if that 
is satisfactory to ever^'bod}^ perhaps that would be better than to take 
up further time at this session of the committee. 

The Chairman. Veiy well; we will let him go on some future day, 
or if the members of the committee prefer it, questions can be sub- 
mitted to him in writing and he can answer them in writing, and that 
can be made a part of the record. 

Mr. Robinson. Suppose Mr. Powell can be here at the next 
meeting ? 

Mr. Powell. Yeiy well, sir. 

Mr. Jones. In behalf of the committee from Oklahoma I wish to 
thank you, gentlemen, for the patience you have had in listening to us 
in presenting our side of the matter. I assure 3'ou we appreciate it very 
much, and also we extend an invitation to one and all of 3"0U when 
you come to Oklahoma, or Indian Territorj^, to call on us, and we will 
do our best to try and entertain 3^ou while you are there. We thank 
3'ou all veiy much. 

The Chairman. On behalf of the committee I will sa3^ that we ha^'e 
been ver3^ much interested and enlightened by the statements made by 
the gentlemen composing this delegation. The chair is satisfied that 
no stronger aggregation of ability could be gotten together from an3^ 
State or Territor3^ in the Union than has been presented before this 
committee to-day. 

(Thereupon, at 1.15 o'clock, the committee adjourned.) 



Washington, D. C, February 15^ 190Jf. 

The committee met this da3" at 10.1:0 o'clock a. m., the Hon. Llewell3m 
Powers in the chair. 

Mr. Powers. Mr. McGuire, I believe it was understood that this 
was 3"0ur inning this morning. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes. We have with us this morning, Mr. Chair- 
man, a citizen of Oklahoma who has lived there since the opening of 
what was known as original Oklahoma — that is, since the first counties 
were opened. He is in business there and interested in a number of 
counties in a business wa3", and he is a gentleman who is veiy con- 
versant with the situation in general there and knows, I think, as 
nearh^ at this time about the desires of the people of Oklahoma as an3^ 
other person in the Territoiy. With the consent of the gentlemen 
and the chairman of the committee, I will be glad to have him per- 
mitted to say a few words to the committee. 

Mr. Powers. Is it the pleasure of the committee to hear him ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I refer to Mr. McNeil. 

Mr. Powers. I presume we would be glad to hear him. 



208 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 



STATEMENT OF MR. J. W. M'NEIL, OF GUTHEIE, OKLA., BANKER. 

Mr. McNeil. I might say in this connection that I feel a little 
embarrassment in undertaking to make a talk here. My business has 
been such for a number of years that I found that I could hire a man 
to talk for me cheaper than I could talk myself. But when it came 
to a matter of business 1 always thought I could put up more arguments 
than an 3^ lawyer whom I could hire. 

I regard statehood as a business proposition, and our people feel that 
way. I feel that it would be an ins alt to the intelligence of this com- 
mittee to make any remarks whatever on the fact that Oklahoma itself 
was prepared for statehood. The facts and figures in that respect 
have certainly become everyday words with everyone of you, and you 
must know that in point of population, intelligence, and property 
Oklahoma is amply prepared and able to conduct a State. 

So far as I can gather from reading the newspapers, it would seem 
that the situation here is that it is more a question with the committee 
of what that State ought to be than anj^thing else. 

Now, I take this position at once, that it is wrong for the committee 
to cross any bridges before we get to them. The Indian Territory is 
not ready for statehood. It has not the taxable property requisite. 
It is true that it has the intelligence and it has the population. For 
more than fifty years the people of that country have had a form of 
government — they have had a form of jurisprudence — and they have 
pretended to conduct a government. True, it was on]j a tribal govern- 
ment, but it acquired considerable force and permanence, and for fifty 
years they have never developed enough to establish a common school 
system. The}^ have never developed sufficiently to establish a system 
of public highways. They never have done any of those things that 
make people great and prosperous. It is naturally a very resourceful 
country. 

I feel that the sentiment in Oklahoma is this: We want statehood. 
We have earned it. In fourteen years we have established a reputa- 
tion that entitles us to it. We are entitled to it on every principle of 
right and representation. W^e are not represented now by the repre- 
sentation that we are entitled to, according to our population. The 
people of the Indian Territory with a county government established 
over them at this time we would be in the same fix that Oklahoma was. 

I want to say that a mistake was made in the original organization 
of Oklahoma by extending county government. It proved to be a 
loa.d that our people are to-day burdened with. There is not a county 
in Oklahoma Territory but has been compelled to run in debt from 
150,000 to $100,000 in order to pay the county running expenses, 
before the property was deeded and became subject to assessment to 
meet the expenses of courts and county government. 

If the Indian Territory is to have State lines thrown around it, one 
of the provisions of the act should be that actual county government 
should not be put in force until such time as the property becomes sub- 
ject to taxation. In the Indian Territory now there is a system of 
courts that amply protects life and property. Litigation can be carried 
on, but it is not burdening her people with the expense of maintaining 
a county government. 

In the new country, for instance, under a provision of law, the first 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 209 

3^ear's salaiy was paid b}' the Government out of the proceeds of the 
sales of lots. This 3^ear in the county of Comanche, which, b}^ the 
way, is a county which has more area than the combined area of the 
State of Delaware and the State of Rhode Island (and we have three 
other counties at least of greater area than the combined area of Rhode 
Island and Delaware), the city of Lawton is appraised this year at 
^1,800,000, while the county is appraised at less than $3,000,000, thus 
making the city pay over three-fifths of the expenses of maintaining 
the county government there. The same thing occurred in Logan 
County, where I live. 

Mr. Lloyd. What is the trouble there? 

Mr. McNeil. The trouble is that the lands are not deeded. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Explain that to him. Mr. McNeil. 

Mr. McNeil. The Kiowa and Comanche countrv was opened some 
two years ago, and the lands are not subject to taxation until the 
homesteader proves up. He has five 3^ears in which to do that. In 
three more years it will come about, although some may take advan- 
tage of the commutation law and come in sooner. 

Mr. Lloyd. The tax now paid in a county is largely personal tax? 

Mr. McNeil. Personal tax. and some on railroad property. A few 
men have commuted their lands, and they are subject to assessment; 
but the bulk of the lands are not. 

Mr. Lloyd. "What is the population of Lawton compared with the 
population of the county ? 

Mr. McNeil. It is about one-sixth, or ma^^be one-fifth. 

Now, in noticing some of the provisions of this House bill No. 10010, 
introduced by Mr. Robinson, of Indiana 

Mr. Lloyd. What is that — the McGuire bill ? 

Mr. McNeil. No; the Robinson bill. I see in it a number of things 
that certainly need attention and correction as well. In the first place, 
there is no provision whatever for highways. 

In opening Oklahoma the Congress of the L^nited States ver\^ wiseh' 
provided that all section lines should be highways. I estimate that 
that was a saving to the Territory of Oklahoma of probabh" 87,000,000. 
Twenty-five dollars a quarter section would be a ver}' low estimate of 
what a farmer would get for locating a public road along one side of 
his farm, and putting it at that price and computing the number 
of section lines in the Indian Territory, the cost of $25 a quarter section 
would amount to over 86,500,000. 

Mr. Lloyd. Then you think it should be remedied by requiring 
that ever}^ section line should be a road ? 

Mr. McNeill. Yes; when you allow a man the right to put in a 
claim for damages he will invariably do it. That is the human nature 
part of it. 

Mr. Robinson. What provision does the Quay bill make for that? 

Mr. McNeil. I have not been able to read the Quay bill yet. 

Mr. Robinson. It probabh^ makes no provision on that subject. Do 
you know, Mr. McGuire? 

Mr. McGuire. I do not know. I have not read that section of the 
bill. 

Mr. George A. Hinshaw. It does not. 

Mr. McNeil. Another criticism occurs to me in reading the Robin- 

OKLA 14 



210 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

son bill this morning over hastily. That is a provision in regard to 
the proceeds of the sale of sections 13, which reads as follows: 

Sec. 8. That sections thirteen in every township in the Cherokee Outlet reserved 
by the President of the United States by proclamation issued August nineteenth, , 
eighteen hundred and ninety-three, opening to settlement the land known as the 
Cherokee Outlet, and sections thirteen heretofore reserved by act of Congress in 
every township in Greer County, and sections thirteen heretofore reserved in each 
township in the Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Indian reservations, and all indem- 
nity lands herefore selected and reserved in lieu thereof, are hereby reserved and 
granted to said State for the benefit of the University of Oklahoma at Norman, 
the Agricultural and Mechanical College at Stillwater, the Edmond Normal 
School at Edmond, the Northwestern Normal School at Alva, the Southwestern Nor- 
mal School at Weatherford, the Preparatory School at Tonkawa, the Agricultural 
and Normal University at Langston, and county high schools in each county wherein 
said lands are situated and reserved; that said sections thirteen so reserved, when sold, 
shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section seven of this act relating to the 
sale of lands reserved for common schools : Provided, That the said lands so reserved 
or the funds derived from the sale of said lands shall be apportioned, one-third to the 
county wherein said lands are situated for the support of high schools in said county, 
the other two-thirds to be apportioned to the above-named educational institutions 
in such manner and amount as the legislature of the State may prescribe. Said 
educational institutions shall remain under the exclusive control of the State, and 
no part of the proceeds arising from the disposal of the lands herein granted for edu- 
cational purposes shall ever be used for the support of any religious or sectarian 
school, college, or university: And provided further , That the lands so reserved or the 
funds derived from the sale thereof shall be safely kept, invested, and held by said 
State, and the income thereof, rentals, and interest only shall be used for the benefit 
of the aforesaid educational institutions and high schools. 

In other words, this substantially provides that one third of the pro- 
ceeds of that shall go to the county high schools. I do not think it 
was the intention of Congress, when they reserved section 13 for the 
purpose of educational institutions, that any part of it should go to 
the support of county high schools, but that they intended it should 
go to the Territorial institutions, and have so definitely stated. 

Mr. EoBiNsoN. What page is that of the bill? 

Mr. McNeil. Page 15. It says that the land be granted for the use 
of the educational institutions named and the high schools. 

Mr. Robinson. On what line are those mentioned? 

Mr. McNeil. Along in lines 21, 22, 23, and 21 of page 14. 

Mr. Lloyd. And you think that should be left out? 

Mr. McNeil. I think so. 

Mr. EoBiNSON. Did vou say page 13 ? 

Mr. McNeil. No; page 14. 

Mr. Robinson. To what purpose would you devote those proceeds? 

Mr. McNeil. To the schools originally named in the bill reserving 
these lands. 

Mr. Robinson. That is limited, however, to section 13 of certain 
counties — Greer, Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita — Indian reservations ? 

Mr. McNeil. No; it is limited to everthing except what is known as 
original Oklahoma; the Sauk and Fox, the Iowa, and the Potawatomi 
lands. Everything else has section 13 in it. 

Mr. Robinson. I see in that same section is a provision for Terri- 
torial schools and mechanical colleges, w 

Mr. McNeil. Yes. The particular schools are named in the bill. 
Of course it has been construed that it applied to other normal scltciols 
as they shall be established. 

Mr. Robinson. You think no portion of that fund should be given 
to the county high schools ? 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 211 

Mr. McNeil. No; it would be unfair, and a diversion from the 
purposes of that reservation. 

Mr. Robinson. Would yoa object to the agricultural and mechanical 
college at Stillwater, and those specific bequests? 

Mr. McNeil. No. The purpose of the original reserve was to aid 
Territorial institutions, and not count}^ high schools at all. These 
lands should be applied to building up the Territorial institutions 
instead of county and local institutions. 

Again, on page 16, I have another criticism of that part where it 
says: 

Provided further, That the proceeds from the sale and. rental of said lands hereto- 
fore reserved shall be apportioned one-half to the county wherein said lands are 
situated, to be used for county buildings, and the remainder to be used for the erec- 
tion of State public buildings, to be apportioned and appropriated in such amount as 
the legislature of the State may prescribe. 

Mr. Robinson. On what line? 

Mr. McNeil. From line 9 to and including line 15. When section 
33 was originally reserved it was specifically stated that it was for 
public and penal buildings, and I see no equity whatever in applying 
the funds to building county buildings. 

Mr. Robinson. You do not distinguish, then, the condition in Indian 
Territory, where they have had no general system of laws for the con- 
struction of highways and schools, and other Territories that were 
admitted after they had secured a Territorial form of government and 
the usual highway laws and laws respecting schools and eleemosynary 
institutions. 

Mr. McNeil. My theoiy of that is this: That Congress should provide 
for the selection of sections 16 and 36 in the Indian Territory. Where 
the land has been allotted a commission should be appointed to appraise 
the value of sections 16 and 36 and pay to the allottees the appraised 
value, just as they did in locating town sites. Every town site was 
originally claimed by an allottee. An allottee got a certain per cent 
of that value. This provision of appropriating $5,000,000 is not fair 
and equitable. Oklahoma, on the present basis, has over $20,000,000 
worth of public lands taken out of her domain. In my opinion there 
is no legal reason wh}^ the Congress of the United States should not 
purchase sections 16 and 36; whether they will cost five or ten millions 
or more or less is not the question. It does put that countrj^ on a par 
with Oklahoma in the support of public schools from the sale of pub- 
lic lands. 

Mr. Robinson. But the intention of Congress was to have Indian 
Territory and Oklahoma together as one State ultimately. Then the 
rights of Oklahoma should not be given undue advantage over those 
of Indian Territory. That should not be disputed or criticised, 
should it? 

Mr. McNeil. This should be the rale: There should be such equity 
in the contribution of lands for Indian Territory as there was for 
Oklahoma. The large reservations for public-school purposes in 
Oklahoma work a hardship on the people who own the land in fee, 
because they pay the tax for the Territorial and county govern- 
ments, while the school lands are not subject to taxation. In all 
equity the Indian Territory should contribute as much in land, so far 
as sections 16 and 36 are concerned, as Oklahoma. That has been the 
universal rule in the admission of ever}^ State for years. The}" should 



212 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

contribute those two sections, and I have been advised by those who, 
I think, ought to know, that Congress has the absolute power to com- 
pel a sale of 16 and 36, and give the allottee the benelit of the pro- 
ceeds of the sale. Whether that amounted to $5,000,000, as this bill 
provides, to be turned into the public fund, or less, or more, would 
be the result of an investigation. 

Mr. Robinson. Are you prepared to deny that the munificent grants 
by Congress to Oklahoma, far in excess in value of any grant that has 
been given to the Territories formed into that Territorial form of gov- 
ernment theretofore, were not made upon the theory that these lands 
thus given to Oklahoma in large number were not ultimately to be 
partly for the benefit of Indian Territory, as this bill contemplates 
now? 

Mr. McNeil. No, sir; I do not concede that at all. Oklahoma has 
not so much more in the aggregate appropriated to her than has been 
given other Territories, but her people have developed so much more 
value. That is were the $20,000,000 comes in. Take Idaho and those 
other Northwestern States, and the lands there would not be worth 
10 cents on a dollar compared with the land in Oklahoma to-day. 

Mr. KoBiNSON. That was due to the Lord's action in placing the 
Indian Territory and Oklahoma in a fertile valley. 

Mr. McNeil. Yes; and putting the right kind of people into Okla- 
homa. 

Mr. PowEKS. Mr. McNeil, returning a moment to that question of 
a reservation along the section line, I find upon looking at the various 
supplementary treaties that have been made with the Indians — I have 
two of them here — that there is a provision for public roads or high- 
ways, 2 rods wide in one and 3 rods in another. This agreement or 
treaty is with the Creeks. There is only a difl'erence in the question of 
width, the provision being "that li rods on each side of the section 
line may be established along all section lines without payment there- 
for, and all allottees and others shall take title to such land," etc. 
That is the law now in the Indian Territory. 

Mr. McNeil. Do you think it would be necessary for the enabling 
act itself to make any mention of that? 

Mr. Powers. It might be well, but that is reserved in the treaty 
with the Indians. I find three treaties here. 

Mr. McNeil. A two-rod highway in that country would not do for 
the people at all. 

Mr. Powers. If there was no reservation in the treaty, do you 
think it would be right for us to place it in this bill — that is, taking 
their land without compensation? 

Mr. McNeil. I have no doubt about it. The interest of the gen- 
eral public in the public highways would justify it. 

Mr. Spalding. We could put in a provision here for taking the 
land and allowing them for it, and offsetting the benefits of it. 

Mr. Powers. That is the case with three of the tribes. 

Mr. McNeil. You should certainly widen out the public highways 
beyond two or three rods. 

Mr. LiLLEY. The benefit would be in . excess of the damage, would 
it not? 

Mr. Powers. In my State they lay out lots of roads, and half the 
time they get no damages, because they say the benefits of having a 
highway along that line are in excess of the cost. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 213 

Mr. Robinson. Are you in accord, Mr. McNeil, with this provision, 
which seems to be about the same in the two bills mentioned, reserv- 
ing the right to the United States Government now held b}^ them for 
the Indian lands and propert}^ as preserved by the treat}^? Consider- 
ing the Indian Territor}^ now and its land, largely held b}" Indians, 
would you take from Congress and give to a new State the authority 
to control that subject-matter of legislation over Indian lands now 
reserved to the United States Congress ? 

Mr. McNeil. I should certainly think Congress was the onl}^ proper 
authority handling that until all treaty regulations were finally settled. 

Mr. Robinson. Either with a view to statehood, or no statehood? 

Mr. McNeil. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Robinson. So that the highwa}^ matter does not become a sub- 
ject for a new State constitutional convention or their legislature, but 
is reserved to Congress, as it now exists in Congress? 

Mr. McNeil. I assume the State could not properh^ pass an act 
unless it had power, given to it in the enabling act, to do it. 

Mr. Robinson. But you would not give the exclusive jurisdiction 
over the subject-matter of roads to the constitutional convention or to 
the State legislature? 

Mr. McNeil. I think so. 

Mr. Robinson. Then jouv objection to this would not be tenable? 

Mr. McNeil. It would be so easy, when the bill is here, to make 
provision now, and not afterwards. 

Mr. Robinson. But that would take the authority from Congress to 
make these provisions. 

Mr. McNeil. The people want highways, and the}^ would rather have 
Congress make provision establishing sectional lines than delegate it 
to the States. 

Mr. Powers. I understand, Mr. Robinson, he wants Congress to do 
it by the enabling act. 

Mr. Robinson. I am calling attention to the fact that the bill should 
provide that the power should still be reserved to Congress, and I am 
asking whether it is not wise to allow Congress to legislate further on 
that in view of the treaty obligations and the conditions of the Indian 
lands there. 

Mr. McNeil. It seems to me there should be no diificult}^ in that. 
The simple way would be to settle it all at once. If it is the wisdom 
of Congress that the future State of Oklahoma should include what is 
now known as the Five Civilized Tribes, on that point I wish to reit- 
erate the statement that our people feel that the}^ are willing to trust 
Congress, but that they ought not to be handicapped by having to wait 
until such time as the people of the Five Civilized Tribes are ready for 
government. They feel that they have developed the country, the 
school system, and societ}^ — the}^ have developed everything that goes 
to make a State happy and prosperous, while the people of the tribes 
have not done so. 

Mr. Reid. You speak of the people of the tribes. Only a small 
percentage of the people down there belong to the tribes; the others 
are tenants and lessees. 

Mr. Reid. There are those there engaged in something outside of 
agricultural pursuits ? 

Mr. McNeil. The population, I think, according to the census, 



214 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

would only show something like only 80,000 Indians in the Five Tribes, 
while the grand total of the population is about 400,000. 

Mr. Reid. That was what I was thinking. 

Mr. McGuiEE. The total population is 392,000. 

Mr. McNeil. These people, however, are holding under some form 
of a contract with the Indians. 

Mr. Reid. That is so in regard to those on the farms, but in the 
towns and cities the}" are engaged in something else. 

Mr. McNeil. In little towns they are still holding under some form 
of contract with the Indians. 

Mr. Reid. Those are very small that have not been surveyed. 

Mr. McNeil. I do not suppose more than twent}^ towns in the Indian 
Territory have been finally proven up. 

Mr. Robinson. Oh, more than that. 

Mr. McGuiRE. There are a great many smaller places which I 
understand have not been recognized. 

Mr. Reid. I was thinking they had about all been proven up. 

Mr. Chester Howe. Three hundred and eighty have been proven up. 

Mr. McNeil. Yes; but until that happens they hold by virtue of 
some lease from some Indians. The Indian originally held his allot- 
ment and made a contract to sell his plot of ground — he called it a 
lot — and the fellow went in there and built a house, and when he 
makes the proof that he did this the title issues from the United States 
to him for this lot. 

Mr. Lloyd. I suppose, Mr. McNeil, in that connection you might 
answer the question — and perhaps it is the question in which this com- 
mittee is most concerned — are j^our people in favor of single or double 
statehood ? 

Mr. McNeil. Our people are in favor of statehood. 

Mr. Robinson. What do you mean by "our people?" 

Mr. McNeil. The people of Oklahoma. Ninety per cent of them 
are in favor of statehood, and they do not want to be bound b}^ any 
handicap, or cross an}" bridges until they get to them. Whether or 
not eventally, in the wisdom of Congress, the Five Tribes should be 
made a part of it, they do not care; but they do want statehood, and 
they do object to being handicapped with those people from that coun- 
try which has not been shown to be ready for statehood. They object 
to that country being put on the same basis with us. We are in favor 
of statehood, leaving the question of what the ultimate boundaries 
will be to the wisdom of Congress. 

Mr. Lloyd. That question is right up to us now, and we are expected 
to decide it in the next few days, whether it shall be a single or a 
double State, and I want your view about it. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Pardon^ me a question, Mr. Lloyd. What, in your 
judgment, Mr. McNeil, is the sentiment of your people as to the 
immediate admission of the Indian Territory ? 

Mr. McNeil. They would be opposed to any provision that would 
put the Indian Territory upon a par with Oldahoma. Unquestion- 
ably they hope ultimately to take in Indian Territory, if it is the wis- 
dom of Congress that this is the best thing for Oklahoma. 

Mr. Llyod. In other words, they would be in favor of the piece- 
meal theory ? 

Mr. McNeil. Yes, sir. 



I 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 215 

Mr. Lloyd. You are the lirst man who has appeared before the 
committee who is in favor of that. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Wliat percentage of the people do3^ou feel, Mr. Mc- 
Neil, from 3'our knowledge of the present conditions — the chaotic con- 
ditions in the Jndian Territoiy — Avhat percentage of the people favor 
the immediate union of the two Territories ? 

Mr. McNeil. I do not believe it would exceed 10 or 15 per cent in 
favor of union at this time. I want to sa}' that the only people who 
take that position are those who are interested selfishly in what the}^ 
believe to be a promising capital location. 

You take the sentiment of the people of Oklahoma outside of the 
localities where it is molded and framed upon the sentiment of the 
people of Oklahoma City and Shawnee — where it is based largely upon 
their ambition to become the capital of the future State — and you will 
find 90 per cent of them are one way, and they want statehood for 
Oklahoma. They feel that an outrage would be perpetrated upon 
them to allow the Indian Territor}^ to come in upon an equal repre- 
sentation with them. You go ahead and provide for the courts and 
provide for the election of Delegates. The}" have no regular organi- 
zation like we have in Oklahoma, bj^ which the governor and others 
fix the basis of respresentation. It is entirely arbitrar}'. And they 
come in there, a motley mass, and have no thought at all along 
those lines with us. and 3'et they are on a par with us; and the}" have 
not the population that we have. 

Mr. Reid. What is the difi'erence in the population i 

Mr. McNeil. At least 150,000. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I think Oldahoma has at least 250,000 more than 
the Indian Territory. 

Mr. Reid. I thought, from the hearings we had here before, that 
the}" were practically about the same. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I heard those remarks m3"self, and I will refer to 
that point in m}- remarks when I address the committee. 

Mr. McNeil. When the 19uO census was taken there was only a 
difference of about 6,000, I believe. Since then the Kiowa and Co- 
manche countrv has been opened: and since then there has been a 
great immigration to other parts of Oklahoma; and it is safe to say 
there is not far from 150,000 people more in Oklahoma than there are 
in the Indian Territoiy. We have about 8,000 square miles more than 
they have, and why the}" should have an equal representation in the 
organization of the Territory with us is beyond my knoAvledge and 
comprehension of equity. 

Mr. RoBiKSOX. You say that a pecentage of 90 in Oklahoma is in 
favor of what you thought the piecemeal policy. That is, the wish of 
the majority of these people is to create a State out of Oklahoma, 
form a constitutional convention, elect the delegates, fix all the places 
for public buildings and the capital, and mold the constitution, and 
then allow the other people to come in without any voice at all about 
those things^ 

Mr. McNeil. They can come in or stay out, just as they please. 

Mr. Llotd. I think I understand you now. Perhaps I did not a 
moment ago. Your idea is that you want statehood for Oklahoma, 
and that is all vou are concerned about ? 



216 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. McNeil. That is all we are concerned about at this time. We 
will cross other bridges when we come to them. 

Mr. Lloyd. And you are willing to put a provision in, such as 
the McGuire bill provides, that in the future if the Indian Territory 
wants to be a part of Oklahoma Congress may aid it without asking 
your consent? 

Mr. McNeil. We can take care of them. 

Mr. Lloyd. But until then you want statehood alone? 

Mr. McNeil. That is what we want, and what we are entitled to. 

Mr. Robinson. You do not mean to assume that any American com- 
munity would consent to come in with you to a constitution in which 
they had no voice ? 

Mr. McNeil. I do not assume that at all. Oklahoma Territory was 
opened with about 2,000,000 acres of land, and then, b}^ piecemeal, 
additions were made to it. When she had 400,000 people, the Kiowa 
and Comanche country was added, making 100,000 people more. 
Suppose no effort had been made to open Oklahoma until this entire 
area was opened to settlement, what kind of confusion would we have 
had there? 

An equitable provision would be to let any of those tribes vote on 
whether they desired to be annexed to Oklahoma or not, and if the 
majority voted to be annexed, let them be annexed. 

There is a great difference in the status of the real estate in the dif- 
ferent tribes. The Creeks can now alienate one-fourth of their land, and 
it will not be long until they can alienate three-fourths. They can be 
annexed without any jar whatever. They could be just assimilated. 
But until they get three-quarters of their land subject to taxation they 
should not be put to the expense of county government. The Govern- 
ment of the United States should protect life and propert}^ until that 
time. 

Mr. Lloyd. How long will that be? 

Mr. McNeil. In about three 3^ears in the Creek country. The other 
lands are not so far along. The country would be developed. They 
would come in under a well-organized and well-regulated government; 
and instead of having a Chinese wall to be built up, if j^ou intend to 
make the Indian Territory without any taxation on a par with Okla- 
homa with all of her taxable property, and make Oklahoma support 
the public schools and everything of that kind, so far as the location 
of public institutions are concerned — there probably never was a greater 
mistake in any State or Territory than the scattering of public institu- 
tions — it means highwaj^ robbery to the taxpa3^ers, and it results in 
injurious and unfair and excessive appropriations for carrying on 
public institutions. 

No better rule could be established than to have all public institu- 
tions located in one place. In that way the taxpayer would have some 
show. The}^ ought to be free to support these institutions properl}^, 
but probably that condition can not obtain. There is no reason that 
I can imagine why the question of the location of public institutions 
should have an}^ bearing on the question of the admission of Okla- 
homa or Indian Territory as a State. 

Mr. KoBiNSON. Your theory as to the central location is ideal, but 
not practical. 

Mr. McNeil. I think it very practical, but possibly not political. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 217 

Mr. Robinson, Where woalcl 3^ou locate them, then; in Oklahoma — 
at what towns, according' to 3^our best judgment? 

Mr. McNeil. I do not think of any particular point, unless it would 
be central. For instance, at Guthrie, or Oklahoma City, or Shawnee, 
or Elreno. 

Mr. Robinson. Guthrie might be more central than the others, 
perhaps. 

Mr. McNeil. Guthrie would suit me better than anywhere else. 
[Laughter.] But I feel myself that a great wrong would be perpe- 
trated upon the people of Oklahoma to put the Indian Territory on a 
par with us without any taxable property. This bill — I refer to the 
Robinson bill — does not make any provision, so far as I can see, for 
establishing count}^ government. Count}- government should not be 
established until at such times as three-quarters of the real estate shall 
be subject to taxation. 

Mr. Robinson. You might take that away from the constitutional 
convention and let the legislature of the State deal with it. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Congress has alwa3^s organized the counties in 
Oklahoma. 

Mr. McNeil. Yes, in every instance. 

Mr. Robinson. Under the Territorial form of government, you 
mean? 

Mr. McNeil. We are now paying debts that were contracted there 
ten years ago. Every countv ran in debt anv where from <i550,000 to 
$100,000. 

Mr. McGuiRE. How about the bonded indebtedness? 

Mr. McNeil. There is practically no Territorial bonded indebted- 
ness; but the counties are bonded to pay the expenses of count}^ gov- 
ernment until such time as the taxes on property would be sufficient 
to meet the necessary expenses. 

Mr. McCtUire. You understand there is a bonded indebtedness that 
we contracted before 

Mr. McNeil. That was to help the schools out. 

Mr. Lloyd. What do you think ought to be done wdth Indian Ter- 
ritory ? 

Mr. McNeil. I think she ought to remain just as she is now until 
at least three-quarters of the lands there are subject to taxation. Then 
I think each tribe should be allowed the right to vote whether they 
wanted to become a part of Oklahoma or not. If these people want a 
separate State, let them have it. If they want to be put over with us, 
we would like to have them. Whenever they are fit subjects to come 
in with Oklahoma we shall welcome them. 

Mr. Powers. Proceed, Mr. McNeil, as rapidh^ as you can, and point 
out the defects of the bill, because Mr. McGuire wants to speak when 
you are through. 

Mr. Robinson. That clock is twenty minutes fast. 

Mr. McNeil. I think perhaps I have said enough. 

McGuiRE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask what is the pleasure of the 
committee as to the time of adjourning to-dav? 

Mr. Powers. We shall adjourn in about half an hour. 

Mr. Lloyd. I think we ought to give Mr. McGuire more time than 
that. We gave the other Delegates full opportunity to speak. 

Mr. McGuiRE. With the consent of the committee, I should like to 



218 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

give some brief attention to some things which have been gone over 
this morning, and then I would like at another time to complete. It 
would not probably take me exceeding half or three-quarters of an hour 
after this. 

Mr. Powers. You have a right to have jonv inning as the Dele- 
gate of the Territory now, and at some other time, too. What we can 
not do this morning we can do some other morning. 

Mr. Robinson. I hear Senator Hanna is dead, and, if so, that will 
adjourn the House. 

Mr. Powers. Why not meet to-morrow morning? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I prefer to come to-morrow morning or this after- 
noon, so far as I am concerned. 

Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Powell is to make a statement. Let him make 
his statement now, if he will. 

Mr. McGuiRE. That will be entirely satisfactory to me. 

STATEMENT OF MR. SAMUEL POWELL, OF WAGONER, IND. T. 

Mr. Powell. I am not used to making speeches, and I am not a 
banker and can not hire anybody to make them for me, so 1 will just 
read a little manuscript which 1 have here with me 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have lived in the 
Indian Territory since 1885, and I believe I know the people down 
there, both Indians and whites. The people are, in my judgment, as 
capable of self-government as any people. These Indians are as good 
farmers, as good mechanics, as good merchants, as good doctors, law- 
yers, and professional people as any people. Many of them have as 
fine farms as you can find anvwhere. 

"I live at Wagoner, Creek Nation, just at the west border of the 
Cherokee Nation. I used to farm and raise stock in the Cherokee 
Nation. I have been all over that nation on horseback. From Wagoner 
to Tahlequah, 26 miles, I know every Indian on the road between the 
places. Not one but has a good farm, and many have farmhouses 
costing from $2,000 to $5,000, with fine barns. They have nice 
orchards, and keep as good horses and cattle as farmers in the States. 
They believe in education, many of them sending their sons and 
daughters to colleges in the States. And I will say right here that the 
illiteracy so mucti talked of is not among the Indians, but among the 
whites, for this reason: The Indians have a free school S3^stem, kept 
up by their own tribal money, while the whites outside of the incor- 
porated towns have no school advantages, there being no way of tax- 
ing personal property to keep up schools or build schoolhouses. Here 
are some figures on school population, according to the latest estimates 
of the Dawes Commission: 

'^ There are 700,000 people in Indian Territory, 284,150 children 
of school age, about 81,000 Indian citizen children, 250,150 noncitizen 
children. Of these, about 120,000 have school advantages under the 
Curtis Act, and 130,150 that live outside of the incorporated towns 
have not the benefit of that act." 

I understand that under the Curtis Act, which was passed June 30, 
1898, provision was made that all incorporated towns might levy a tax 
for school purposes; and now all the good-sized incorporated towns in 
the. Indian Territory have a free-school system under that law. Some 
of you, perhaps, at Ardmore and Purcell and other places saw fine 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 219 

school buildings, which were built out of the taxes on the incorporated 
towns. 

Mr. Robinson. Would it interrupt j^ou to ask how many incorpo- 
rated towns you have? 

Mr. Powell. About 400, I think. 

Mr. Robinson. And the population ranges from 200 up, does it? 

Mr. Powell. Yes; from 200 up to 12,000. 

Mr. Robinson. How large is Ardmore ? 

Mr. Powell. About 12,000. 

Mr. Robinson. What other large cities are there? 

Mr. Powell. Chickasaw has over 8,000; South McAlester has 7,000; 
Muscogee, 9,000; Wagoner, 4,500; Onita, 5,000, and Tulsa about 
4,500. 

"The Indian Territory has as great natural resources as any section 
of the United States. There are 444,000 acres of coal land in the 
Choctaw Nation to be segregated and sold by the United States Gov^ 
ernment. This coal is fine for both fuel and coking. There are 
many hundreds of thousands of acres more of coal land in the Choctaw 
Nation. Then, in the Creek Nation there is now being developed the 
Henrietta coal field of 90,000 acres, besides an immense coal field near 
Tulsa, in the Creek Nation, as well as large areas in the Cherokee 
Nation. Also, there is beyond question one of the largest oil fields 
out there in the United States. Only one section of land in all 
this oil area is now being worked — that in Cherokee Nation, near 
Bartlesville." 

That was under the treat}^ of 1902, I think it was. They had, prior 
to that, covered that whole country up with a kind of blanket leases 
for oil purposes, and the Cudahy Oil Compan}'^, of Chicago, claimed 
that they had made impro\^ements on one section of land, and in that 
section, of 640 acres, there were 45 wells, Avith an output of 4,000 bar- 
rels per dsij. This oil field extends from the northwest part of Chero- 
kee Nation through the Creek Nation. There is an inexhaustible 
supply of gas. 

I understand that at Muscogee the other day they shot an oil well 
and it spouted clear up over the derrick, and the oil is now running 
through the streets. At least, I read that in a paper this morning. 

"There are large deposits of lead and zinc in the Cherokee and 
Choctaw nations, with the finest asphalt beds in the United States in 
Chickasaw Nation. The agricultural lands can not be surpassed, as 
many of you have seen. 

"There are 95 national banks in the Indian Territory and 94 private 
banks and trust companies. 

"There are 1,500,000 head of cattle, 400,000 head of horses, 65,000 
head of mules, 350,000 head of hogs, and 25,000 head of sheep. 

"Taking in view all these resources, which are rapidly being devel- 
oped by the 700,000 population now there and the great influx of popu- 
lation to aid them, I would like to know why we could not support a 
government or help to support one." 

Mr. Robinson. What is the railroad mileage ? 

Mr. Powell. About 2,700 miles. 

Mr. Robinson. Have you got railroads projecting there now? 

Mr. Powell. Yes, sir. My folks at my town subscribed $75,000 
for a railroad the other day, but really I do not know where it is going. 
It is coming through the town, though. 



220 STATEHOOD FOK OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Robinson. Do you know any reason in connection with the 
present system of government in the Indian Territory or its present 
status which should prevent it on its merits from being admitted to 
statehood ? 

Mr. Powell. No, sir; I do not see any reason why it should not be 
admitted. The}^ talk to you about our having no taxable property. 
There is a great quantity of it there. When you come to 94 or 95 
national banks, 94 private banks, trust companies, -and all this cattle, 
and all these railroads, this taxable property, and coal mines, and all 
that, I should think you had a good deal of taxable property. 

Mr. McGuiRE. What per cent of your real estate has been deeded? 

Mr. Powell. Oh, a ver}^ small per cent of it. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Under present conditions and present laws, in your 
judgment, how long would it probably be before 50 per cent of your 
real estate is deeded ? 

Mr. Powell. There ought to be 50 per cent of it deeded inside of 
two 3^ears and a half. 

Mr. Reid. Pretty nearl}^ as soon as this would take effect, anyhow ? 

Mr. Powell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Robinson. What objection is there against a Territorial govern- 
ment for the Indian Territory to take effect, say, in 1906? 

Mr. Powell. I do not see any objection. We would stretch our- 
selves to help pay for it. 

Mr. Robinson. Have you spoken of the intelligence and citizenship 
of the Indians of that Territory ? 

Mr. Powell. No. You can scarcely find an Indian there who can 
not read and write. They are all educated people. They are better 
educated than the average. 

Mr. Robinson. What do you think is the sentiment of the Indians 
in the Indian Territory on the subject of single statehood for Indian 
Territory and Oklahoma? 

Mr. Powell. I think you would find it in favor of single statehood 
with Oklahoma. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Was not a vote taken in the Choctaw and Chickasaw 
Nation, Mr. Powell, and was not that vote unanimously against it? 

Mr. Powell. That was a kind of manipulated convention. 

Mr. McGuiEE. Was not that the result? 

Mr. Powell. No; most of the people never went to vote. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Is not that the statement made by Mr. Foley? 

Mr. Powell. He meant by the tribal heads. He did not mean by 
the people. I have at m}^ hotel here petitions from towns down there, 
and on those petitions are the names of very prominent Indians. 

The office-holding people in the Indian Territory among the Indians 
are just like the office-holding people among the other fellows there. 
They do not want anything to take place. They want to hold on to 
this as long as possible, because there may be another chance to get 
something out of this bill. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Was there any sentiment expressed at that time or 
any showing made in favor of single statehood by those people? 

Mr. Powell. No; because it was a matter just as among the Indians, 
and the big fellows took the matter up and very little was said about 
it, and the ordinary Indian took little or no part in it. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Is it not a fact that the big ones controlled the other 
party ? 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 221 

Mr. Powell. No; not on this proposition. Take Tahlequah, for 
instance, the capital. There the people are, nearly everyone of them, 
in favor of single statehood. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Have they ever expressed themselves that way ? 

Mr. Powell. No; except when you talk to them about it the}^ are 
that wa3% and when you meet them at a barbecue or at a picnic 3^ou 
will find them that way. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Is it not a fact that ever\^ recorded expression of 
sentiment is the other way i 

Mr. Powell. Nobod}^ has ever spoken of it officialh', excepting the 
head tribal people, Avho want to prolong this thing. The}^ want to 
make something out of it, if they can hold on to some kind of a gov- 
ernment. Away back the Indian ran everything in his own hands, 
and about the year 1898 the Government took it out of his hands, and 
he did not have such a graft on it, and he tried to hold on, and in some 
cases he got it extended eight or nine months, in order to get a further 
graft on it, and that is the reason wh}' they do not want to give up. 
They think some chance may bob up, and some time may be selected 
in the future — after 1906 — when this tribal government can be 
rene?^ed. They like to hold onto the little power thej^ have, and there 
is a chance to get a few dollars occasionally. 

Mr. Robinson. Is it your view, Mr. Powell, from the commercial 
standpoint, as well as for the good of the Territory — its administra- 
tion, its schools, etc., that it should be united with Oklahoma 
Territory ? 

Mr. Powell. I will give 3'ou the truth on that. In my judgment a 
great many of the white people in the Indian Territor}^ had been for a 
a while in favor of two States. As 3'ou all know, the}^ had, before this 
3'ear, different stories. Then all concluded that it would be best for 
the commercial interests of the countr3^ to unite with Oklahoma. 
Before that the3^ had a kind of Territorial pride and a local pride, 
and wanted two States. But the3" have now given up that idea almost 
universalh^; and now, for commercial reasons, and for the reason that 
that the3^ are in a desperate condition, they would like to have single 
statehood with Oklahoma. 

Mr. Lloyd. That change has been made largelv in the last six 
months? 

Mr. Powell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thayer. It seems to me 3^ou are going on with leaps and 
bounds. You first were a wild and ungoverned countr3^, and now 3"ou 
want to become a State. You must first walk and then run. Don't 
3^ou think you people ought to have some kind of Territorial govern- 
ment down there? 

Mr. Powell. Yes. I asked last year to have a Territorial govern- 
ment, but nobod3^ would listen to us. 

Mr. Thayer. Your people want to be a State right off? 

Mr. PoAVELL. No. Last 3^ear we had a bill and got the committee 
to report it, but could never get it up before the House. 

Mr. Trayer. If 3^ou thought there was a sentiment here to unite 
Indian Territor3^ with the State of Oklahoma, don't vou think your 
people would be ver3^ well satisfied to have a Territorial governments 

Mr. Powell. Rather than have no change at all, Mr. Thayer, we 
would be glad to have a Territorial government. 



222 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Thayer. My question is, Would you not be substantially 
satisfied? 

Mr. Powell. Well, I tell you the truth; I think we would. 

Mr. Thayer. Of course, you would like to be like Massachusetts 
and New York right off; but it seems to me you ought to be on pro- 
bation for a while. 

Mr. Powell. Of course, you must remember we were all from the 
States, and carried with us our knowledge of State government, and 
so on. 

Mr. Thayer. You have a cosmopolitan population there of pros- 
pectors, and projectors, and philosophers, and patriots all; but it 
occurs to me if 3^ou had for a time a Territorial government, it would 
be just such as you would have a right to expect. 

Mr. Powell. If you would guarantee that to me, I would take my 
seat. 

Mr. Robinson. It has been stated by Oklahomans generall}^ who 
appeared before the committee that the people of Indian Territory 
were in every respect, as citizens and as to industry, about equal to 
the citizens of Oklahoma Territory. I want to ask how many hundred 
thousand people you have in Indian Territory who have come from the 
States? 

Mr. Powell. We must have something over 600,000. A great 
many of the Indian Territory citizens came from the States. 

Mr. Robinson. At least 500,000 of your people have come from 
civilized communities in the States? 

Mr. Powell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Powers. What is the pleasure of the committee as to adjourn- 
ment? Without objection, we will now adjourn until 10.30 o'clock 
to-morrow morning, to hear Mr. McGuire. 

Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned. 



Washington, D. C, February 16^ 190 1^. 

The committee this day met at 10.45 o'clock a. m., the Hon. 
Llewellyn Powers in the chair. 

Mr. Powers. I believe the order of exercises to-day is to listen to 
the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. McGuire. 

Mr. McGuire. If the programme may be varied slightly, Mr. Chair- 
man, there are some gentlemen here from different parts of Okla- 
homa — two or three of them — who express a desire to show very 
briefly how their people feel in their country in regard to statehood. 

Mr. Robinson. What do you think, Mr. McGuire, about suiting the 
convenience of the committee, in your own interest as well, b}^ speak- 
ing 3^ourself first? 

Mr. McGuire. I am at the pleasure of the committee. I would 
like, though, that these people should speak before the hearings close. 

Mr. Powers. Perhaps we can hear them at the next meeting. 

Mr. McGuire. I do not believe it would take more than a minute 
or two. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do you just want to ask them about the sentiment of 
the people? 

Mr. McGuire. Yes; that is all. 

Mr. Lloyd. They could do that in two or three minutes apiece. 

Mr. Powers. Verv well. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 223 



STATEMENT OF JUDGE D. L. SLEEPEU, OF lAWTON, OKLA. 

Judge Sleeper. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 
have not yet earned the title of judge, unless it be of good whisky. 
I live in the southwestern part of Oklahoma, at Lawton. I have been 
three and a half 3'ears in that Territoiy, and traveled bv buggy over 
nine- tenths of the counties. I am a Republican. I went there in the 
Government service; resigned, and opened a law office. 

Mr. McGuire spoke to me and asked me if 1 would like to speak to 
the committee, and I told him I would be glad to add what I consider 
the expression of the opinion of the people of my section and of the 
entire Territory, so far as I can judge. We want statehood. We 
want it badly. I do not believe there is an3'one in Oklahoma, outside 
of a very few that might have a personal interest involved, but who 
is in favor of statehood in some shape. The majority of opinion, I 
believe, would favor statehood for Oklahoma, with some provision for 
the annexation of Indian Territory when it is ready for annexation. 

I understand the temper of the committee and your desire to con- 
clude this hearing, and so I shall say nothing further. 

Mr. Lloyd. What do you sa}" about the sentiment of the city of 
Lawton — there has been one other gentleman before the committee 
from Lawton — as to single statehood or separate statehood? 

Judge Sleeper. The Republicans of Oklahoma, almost to a man, 
favor the statehood of Oklahoma under the McGuire bill, or something 
like that, with the understanding that eventually we will have to take 
in the Indian Territory. But we do not Avant to take it in until it is 
read}". 

The Democrats want statehood and would rather have Indian Ter- 
ritory included at once, because it would make it Democratic. But 
the}' would rather have statehood for Oklahoma alone, if they were 
assured of carrying the election. If we had . statehood for Oklahoma 
without the Indian Territory attached, it would be a very doubtful 
State from their point of view, and the Republicans would carry it, 
because they would have the credit of making it a State. But the last 
election and every election show how close it is down there, and the 
addition of the new territory in the Southwest has not changed the 
complexion of Oklahoma. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do 3'ou think the expression you assert is the expres- 
sion of the people or the expression of the politicians? 

Judge Sleeper. I undertook to express what I thought was the 
opinion of the people generalh\ Of course the politicians do the most 
of the talking for the people; but I know this, gentlemen of the com- 
mittee, that everyone down there believes that Oklahoma needs state- 
hood, and needs the powers that come with it to regulate its affairs. 
We have a magnificent country and a population well educated, and all 
that, and ready for statehood, and we are simply deprived of it for 
political reasons. 

Mr. Lloyd. The question I would like to ask you is, What percent- 
age of the masses of your people, irrespective of politics, are for single 
statehood as compared with the number that may be for separate state- 
hood ? The reason I ask that question specificalh^ is that there have 
been various views expressed before the committee as to that, and the 
committee are anxious to get the real situation as to the views of the 
people down there. 



224 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Judge Sleeper. There is no question to my mind, gentlemen, if the 
question of single statehood or separate statehood were placed before 
the people there on a vote, that separate statehood could carry it, 
because we have a larger tax duplicate and a larger school fund than the 
Indian Territory possesses, and we think we have a better population. 

Mr. Lloyd. What portions of the Territory are for single statehood? 

Judge Sleeper. Along the eastern border of the Territory, next to 
the Indian Territory, where they think they will get some advantage 
in locating some public institutions by securing the votes of the 
Indians — you will find them there, along the eastern part of the Ter- 
ritory, around Oklahoma city — you may find them entertaining that 
sentiment. But behind them all is simply a personal advantage, which 
they think they are going to obtain by reason of being near the Indian 
Territory and in closer proximity when they come to vote for a capital 
or a penitentiary or asylums, or something of that kind. Separate 
statehood, in my opinion, would be carried by a decided vote if it 
were submitted to the people and 3^ou avoid party lines. 

The Democrats say, "(rive us Indian Territory and we have got 
them," meaning they have got the Republicans. There is no question 
about it. Ninety per cent of the population of Indian Territory is 
Democratic. Give us separate statehood, and I think Oklahoma would 
be Republican. We could carry it with a good, strong ticket. The 
Democrats could not carry it with a weak ticket. We live down there 
where we do not expect any of these public institutions. We have 
no hope for it, and that does not influence us in the least. 

Mr. Robinson. Regardless of political considerations, take the people 
in your section of the country who live near the Indian Territory and 
who are conversant with the conditions there. Do the people believe, 
in general, that the people of Indian Territory are not prepared for 
statehood at this time? 

Judge Sleeper. I think so. One of the best arguments that I could 
present to you is the fact that in the last election the normal Demo- 
cratic majority of 1,000 or 1,200 in Comanche County was cut down 
for McGuire to about 400, and the only argument was that we were 
not ready for Indian Territory yet. 

Mr. Robinson. Mr. McGuire was elected on the Republican plat- 
form, very strongly advocating single statehood for Indian Territory; 
and when you are advocating separate statehood and speak of the 
sentiment there now, you mention it as that sentiment formed by 
reason of that platform declaration on which Mr. McGuire was elected, 
and which was molded and discussed in that partisan campaign, do 
you not? 

Judge Sleeper. It was a campaign of education upon that line, I 
would admit. 

Mr. Spalding. But, recognizing the fact that we are not legislating 
for a day, what would you think best for all time to come — one State 
or two ? 

Judge Sleeper. If I were a Democrat, I would say, "Make one 
State of the two Territories." Of course then I would be sure of my 
party success for all time. But being a Republican, I say, '* Let us 
organize this State, and get along until we are ready to take the other 
Terrilory in." 

Mr. Spalding. I mean, " What would be the best for the people of 
the two Territories, irrespective of politics, for all time to come?" 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA 225 

Jadge Sleeper. For my own part I never for a moment entertained 
the idea of getting two States down there. The idea was how to get 
one State. 

Mr. McGuiRE. What do you regard as the proper thing for the 
people in general, Oklahoma and Indian Territory, taking Oklahoma 
now, and waiting until Indian Territory is better prepared? 

Judge Sleeper. I think our people are in favor of separate state- 
hood. We are perfectly willing that Indian Territory be attached, 
however, because I understand that we have got to take it, and the Demo- 
crats want it. So we are all agreed upon this proposition that in the 
next half dozen years Oklahoma will embrace both these Territories. 

Mr. Lloyd. Then, as 1 understand you, the Republicans of Okla- 
homa are opposed to single statehood now, because it would give a 
temporary party advantage to the Democrats? 

Judge Sleeper. They oppose it on the ground that the Indian Ter- 
ritory is not yet ready. You throw upon us a population almost 
equal to that of Oklahoma, far below us in average intelligence, a far 
greater proportion of Indians, and people who can not read and write. 
I have traveled in both Territories, and I know what I am saying. 

Mr. Lloyd. What do you say, from a business standpoint, of the 
advisability of separate statehood? 

Judge Sleeper. I would say, from a business standpoint, give us a 
separate State. 

Mr. Lloyd. Why? 

Judge Sleeper. Because upon the same principle — I do not know 
just how I would answer that proposition, but 

Mr. Lloyd. Would not your taxes be probably lighter and the bur- 
dens of government less if you had them combined? 

Judge Sleeper. I think not. I think the tax duplicate of Okla- 
homa is far greater that the tax duplicate of Indian Territory, and the 
population of the two Territories is about equal. The expenses of 
government would be more that doubled by adding Indian Territory 
to us, because they have a larger criminal population. 

In Comanche County, Okla., I think I can safel}^ state that the 
majority of the trials so far have been of Indian Territory people who 
have raided our people from time to time — highwa}^ robbery, and so on. 

Mr. Robinson. Have you not permitted an error to creep into your 
statement about the Indians in Oklahoma and the Indians in Indian 
Territory ? Is it not a fact that you have more Indians in Oklahoma 
than they have in the Indian Territory? 

Judge Sleeper. I think not. 

Mr. Robinson. And is it not a fact that you have more blanket 
Indians than they have in the Indian Territory? 

Judge Sleeper. I think not; but you can get those figures from the 
Indian Ofiice. I think they have from two to three times as many 
Indians in the Indian Territory as we have in Oklahoma. 

Mr. Lloyd. Have you any mines of any kind in your Territor}^ of 
any consequence? 

Judge Sleeper. No. 

Mr. Lloyd. Would it not be advantageous if you had the mines of 
Indian Territor}^^ in your State? 

Judge Sleeper. That is one of the compensations that would come 
to us by reason of single statehood. 

Mr. Robinson. What bearing would it have upon 3^our conclusions 

OKLA 15 



226 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

if it were demonstrated by the reports that you have from 10,000 to 
20,000 more Indians in Oklahoma than they have in Indian Territory? 

Mr. McGuiRE. We have only from about 10,000 to 11,000 Indians 
in Oklahoma Territory, all told. 

Judg-e Sleeper. Of course, if that were true, Mr. Robinson, one of 
the arguments that I advance would not appty; but I do know this, 
that in traveling through Indian Territory, and in taking depositions 
of witnesses when I was in the Government service, with power to 
administer oaths and take testimony, I remember examining as high 
as five witnesses in a day who had to sign their names b}^ a mark. 
That never happened in Oklahoma. The intelligence and education of 
the people of Oklahoma, taking them as a whole, as a class, outside 
the Indians, will equal that of any State in the Union. 

Mr. Robinson. You understand, when I say those Indians in the 
Indian Territory do not exceed the number of Indians in Oklahoma 
Territor}", I mean those that are of Indian blood — pure blood. 

Judge Sleeper. I supposed they had from four to eight times as 
many Indians in the Indian Territory as we have in Oklahoma. 

Mr. Robinson. I am not sure that the records will show that, but 
I referred to allotment records. 

Judge Sleeper. Indian Territory is filled up by people from Arkan- 
sas, and people who do not compare with the intelligence of the peo- 
ple from Texas, Kansas, and Iowa, who occupy Oklahoma at the pres- 
ent time. 

Mr. Robinson. You mean colored people, do you? 

Judge Sleeper. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Robinson. Then leave our Arkansas friends out. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Reid. The}^ were Republicans, so that is all right. 

Judge Sleeper. We want statehood. I believe the majorit}' of our 
people would say separate statehood. I believe they would. 

Mr. Lloyd. But you are concerned, first of all, for statehood? 

Judge Sleeper. Yes. And if we have got to take Indian Territory, 
we are willing to take it. I am satisfied that nine-tenths of the people 
of Oklahoma outside of the politicians would vote for it. 

Mr. Spalding. What difierence does a State line make with refer- 
ence to coal mines? 

Judge Sleeper. Separate statehood would leave the coal mines in 
Indian Territory. 

Mr. Spalding. What difierence would that make? 

Judge Sleeper. Some of our people imagine the}^ could control the 
coal rates. For instance, we are a hundred miles from the coal fields, 
and are paying ^7.50 a ton for soft coal that we used to pay ^2.60 per 
ton for in Ohio. If we had statehood we could throw the laws of 
Oklahoma over them, and bring some of them to terms. 

I shipped a carload of household goods from Oklahoma City to 
Lawton, a distance of 90 miles, and the charge was |50, and I had to 
pa}^ $61.10 to get the car, and there were less than 10 tons of goods. 
Of course I hope to get the 'fll.lO back, which was clearh- a graft; 
but in other words, I shipped from Ohio to Oklahoma City for $125, 
a distance of 1,000 miles, the same goods I paid one-half that price to 
get transported 50 miles after I got to Oklahoma. There are many 
things like that at present which make us feel the necessity for state- 
hood. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Mr. Henry Lasson, of Elreno, Okla., a business 



I 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 227 

man, is perhaps conversant with the situation in his section. Mr. 
Lasson, please state how your people feel as to statehood. 
Mr. Lloyd. Please state your occupation. 

STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY LASSON, OF ELRENO, OKLA. 

Mr. Lasson. I am in the milling business and the grain business. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, 1 did not come here to make a speech. 
I never made one in my life. I am simply a business man and a 
shipper. I came up to Chicago on some business, and also came to 
Washington to see Mr. McGuire on some other business, about some 
school bonds — a bill relative to the school situation down there now 
pending before Congress; and I saw Mr. Guire, and I have run into 
this business here just accidentally. 

I must sa}^ that, so far as Elreno is concerned, or the central part 
of Oklahoma, we are stricth^ in favor of statehood. In fact, we are 
unanimous in favor of statehood. We need it. 

I give 3^ou my reasons wh}^ we need it. We are paying ever}" day 
for being a Territor3^ We are paying 50 per cent more for freight 
rates in Oklahoma than you pay in adjoining States — 50 per cent more 
than Kansas pays, for example. 1 had a tabulation on this matter 
some time ago. We pa}" 50 per cent more on local distance tariffs 
than in Kansas, or Arkansas, or Texas. As a business man, I am 
therefore in favor of statehood. I think we ought to have it, and are 
entitled to it. 

I am also in the coal business. We are paying enormous prices, as 
Mr. Sleeper stated a while ago. That is to some extent manipulated 
by the coal interests in Indian Territory, and we have not much of a 
way to reach them. We have virtually to pay the price. I believe it 
is the mine operators, not the railroads, that are doing most of the 
harm to us. That is all I have to say in the matter. If you have any 
questions to ask me I will be glad to answer. 

Mr. Robinson. They have formed a combine or trust down there to 
control the price of coal at the mines ? 

Mr. Lasson. I believe that is it. 

Mr. Robinson. Have you not resorted to the antitrust law ? 

Mr. Lasson. It is pretty hard to reach them. 

Mr. McGuiRE. What kind of statehood, Mr. Lasson, do the people 
of your section want? 

Mr. Lasson. We want statehood for Oklahoma, Avith eventually 
Indian Territory added to it. We do not think the Indian Territory 
at this time is ready to come in with us. You have all heard the 
arguments. I do not think they are ready to come in yet. I have 
traveled through that country myself a great deal, and to compare us 
with the Indian Territory in the way of advancement is too large a 
stretch entirely. It is as different as day is from night. 

Mr. Robinson. How long a time do you think should elapse before 
Indian Territory is made a part of Oklahoma? 

Mr. Lasson. Four or live years, perhaps six or seven years, would 
do a great deal of good, Mr. Robinson; I should judge so. 

Mr. Lloyd. But you want statehood any way you could get it? 

Mr. Lasson. Yes; we want statehood. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Judge Rummons, of Hobart, in the western part of 
Oklahoma, in what is known as the new country — the Kiowa, Co- 
manche, and Apache country — will speak. 



228 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 



STATEMENT OF JUDGE N. RUMMONS, OF HOBART, OKLA. 

Judge RuMMONS. I differ a little from my friend Sleeper. I have 
not earned the title of judge in the ordinary way it is earned in the 
East, but everybody who is a lawyer in Oklahoma earns the title of 
judge. As soon as he is admitted to the bar in Oklahoma he becomes 
a judge. 

I am in Washington on a business errand, and had not expected to 
appear before this committee on the statehood question, but now that 
I am here I want to say that our people are anxious for statehood. 
We do not want to be delayed in being admitted to statehood. 

I am a Democrat, and upon the question of separate or single state- 
hood, if the matter came up to a vote for immediate statehood or a 
single State, I am not sure how a majority of our people would feel on 
the matter. But I know that the proposition that we are unalterably 
opposed to separate statehood does not represent the majority of the 
Democrats of my countj^ — Kiowa County. The Democrats there want 
statehood, and they are not opposed to separate statehood for the 
purpose of waiting for single statehood. We would be willing to have 
statehood with a provision for the annexation of Indian Territory 
later. The country has been rapidly developed, and is continuing in 
its development, and we feel that we will be hampered unless we get 
statehood in the near future. I believe that is all I need say. 

Mr. Spalding. Which do you think would best promote the welfare 
of the people of the two Territories in the long run — to be admitted as 
one State or as two States? 

Judge RuMMONS. Well, my personal opinion is that it would be better 
to admit them as two States. That is my theory of the matter. 

Mr. Spalding. You speak about the benefits of statehood. Aside 
from the matter of pure sentiment, do you not think that is a great 
deal imaginar}^ ? 

Judge RuMMONS. Well, I think sentiment has a good deal to do with 
business. I think that in the future the fact that Oklahoma is a State 
would assist us in a business way, in attracting additional population 
and additional immigration that would be desirable. People will go to 
a country for business reasons, but they are also influenced by senti- 
ment and bv the political condition of the country which they may be 
going to. Probably, as an abstract proposition, I think perhaps we 
could do just as much business as a Territor}" as we could do as a State. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is there any considerable number of your people who 
want to be admitted on patriotic reasons — as a political entity? 

Judge RuMMONS. Yes; that is the principal reason. Yes; we would 
like to elect our own officials and have them responsible to us for the 
administration of the State government. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Judge Cunningham, of Lawton, Okla., the county 
attorney of that county, would like to express himself. 

STATEMENT OF JUDGE S. M. CUNNINGHAM, OF LAWTON, OKLA. 

Judge Cunningham. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, Judge Sleeper 
and myself come from the same town. Our positions here are simply 
a verification of the fact that we all do not feel alike, and that we all 
do not hear alike. 

As county attorney of my county, of course I am perhaps more 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 229 

closeh' connected with the people there and more intimately associated 
with them than Judge Sleeper. I expect 1 am as well acquainted with 
the conditions as any man in my county. While I am a Democrat. I 
will not speak from a political standpoint at all. I do not think that 
the people of the Territory should view this matter from a political 
standpoint. 

As to the sentiment in our countiy as to the kind of State we want, 
whether or not to have Oklahoma alone as a State, or Oklahoma and 
the Osage Nation and those other reservations thrown in, or whether 
or not to have Oklahoma and Indian Territory together, those ques- 
tions are the subject of political controversy among the politicians of 
the Territory. I know Democrats — now, there is one over there [indi- 
cating], perhaps, who may base his proposition on the ground that we 
would have four United States Senators and two Representatives in 
Congress if the two States were admitted independently. There may 
be Republicans and Democrats both who look at the matter in that way. 

That is a matter of politics among the politicans of Oklahoma and 
should not come into the consideration of Congress in the passage of 
this act. You gentlemen assume and have the idea, which I am glad 
to find prevails among the committee, that it is the people whom you 
are looking after down there, and not the politicians. 

^Iv jurors are made up of both classes. Democrats and Republicans. 
They are drawn under the system of our juries down there, and per- 
haps the}^ are half and half as regards political divisions. I have talked 
with them about the matter. We have discussed the matter in the 
grand jury. We have discussed it as a petit jury, and outside of the 
politicians in Oklahoma in the two different parties I do not believe 
there is 7 per cent of the citizens of Oklahoma that are in favor of 
statehood for Oklahoma alone. 

Xow, I am not acquainted in the northern part of the Territory, 
except with politicians in a part of the towns up there. But I am 
speaking of my own county and basing my remarks on my knowledge 
of the citizenship there. Almost 95 per cent of the citizens of Coman- 
che County, outside the politicians, are in favor of statehood with 
Oklahoma and Indian Territory together. 

The proposition made by Judge Sleeper awhile ago. that the senti- 
ment in the last Congressional campaign that elected Mr. McGuire — 
and with due deference to Mr. McGuire. too — was the sentiment of 
the people of Oklahoma in favor of Oklahoma statehood alone, is not 
the matter that elected Mr. ]\IcGuire. I was a candidate in that cam- 
paign for county attorney in my count3\ My county cut Mr. Cross, 
the Democratic nominee, more than any other nominee in the county, 
and I know what cut him. The people of that countv said, '*We want 
statehood, and we are afraid the Congress will be Republican, and we 
are afraid to elect a Democratic Delegate to a Republican Congress for 
fear be will not get statehood; and we would rather have a Republican 
to represent us than a Democrat in a Republican Congress, to go there 
and work for statehood. I told Mr. Cross's campaign manager before 
the election that Cross would fall 2,500 behind the Democratic ticket, 
and he did. 

Mr. WiLSOx. He lost that much? 

Judge CuxxiNGHAM. Yes: he fell about 2,500 behind his ticket. 
The average Democratic majority was about 1.000. The people were 
constrained to vote against Mr. Cross and in favor of Mr. McGuire 



230 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

on those considerations. The Democrats who left the Democratic 
ticket were not Democrats who were in favor of Oklahoma statehood 
alone. But they were in favor of Oklahoma with Indian Territory, 
or statehood first of all; and the}^ voted for the Republican Delegate 
to Congress because they thought he could do more to secure state- 
hood in a Republican Congress than a Democratic Delegate could. I 
know that because I was engaged in that campaign. 

Here is another thing that the people dow^n there considered: We 
do not want a statehood based upon any theory that would bring about 
permanent friction, or make any division in the State, or draw any 
line of distinction which would oblige a man to take sides with a cer- 
tain party. We appreciate the fact that if Oklahoma should be 
admitted as a State with the privilege for the admission of Indian 
Territory later on, Oklahoma as a State would have to go ahead and 
select the location of the different State buildings and different State 
institutions without the Indian Territory having a voice, and in conse- 
quence a soreness would be created by that which could never be wiped 
out. In every election afterwards it would be a fight between Okla- 
homa proper and that part that is brought in later on. 

I have given you, gentlemen, just what I know in my own county, 
and I think that is really the way it exists here. With due deference 
to my friend Judge Sleeper, I think I am in a better position to under- 
stand the sentiment of the people in the count}^ than he. 

Mr. Spalding. What do you say, barring sentiment and politics and 
the interests of to-day, would be the best — one State or two States, in 
th long run? 

eJudge Cunningham. Whj?-, one State. It would lighten our taxes. 
The coal-field matters could be better adjusted. The freight rates 
could be better controlled. The railroad companies are doing more to 
injure Oklahoma Territory to-day than anything else, because the^^ have 
nothing to control them. They are doing more to injure Oklahoma 
than all the other combinations put together. 

Mr. Spalding. What is the matter with the legislature of the Ter- 
ritory? They could control them just as well as a State legislature 
could. 

Judge Cunningham. I do not think there is a railroad in Oklahoma 
Territory that has even a claim agent. Judge Sleeper is attorney for 
the 'Frisco Road, and I think he will tell you that they do not have a 
claim agent in the Territory because there is no danger of getting 
a judgment against them. Have you one, Judge? 

Judge Sleeper. Oh, yes; we have one. Mr. Mayer, of Enid. 

Judge Cunningham. For the whole system? 

eJudge Sleeper. Yes, for the two Territories. 

Judge Cunningham. They need one in Indian Territory, but not in 
Oklahoma. 

Mr. Powers. Is there anything further gentlemen ? Are there an}^ 
other speakers? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: Owing to the condi- 
tion of my voice and health, by reason of an attack of grippe or 
influenza, I do not know whether I shall be able to talk or not this 
morning. 

Mr. Powers. As you evidently can not get through, and this is all 
the witnesses you have to bring, I suggest 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 231 

^Ir. Lloyd. Ave you through now, excepting your own statement? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Powers. How would Frick}^ suit you, at lU.30? 

Mr. McGuiRE. It would suit me. If ^^ou have an\^ further time 
now I might begin. 

Mr. PoAVERS. Suppose we hear a^ou on Friday ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Chairman, in order that we may have no misun- 
derstanding about this time let it be understood that Mr. McGuire 
shall have the full time — all the time he wants. We have been tread- 
ing on his toes all along. 

Mr. Powers. Well, without objection, it will be understood that 
we shall hear Mr. McGuire on Frida}^, beginning at 10.30 o'clock. 

Thereupon, at 11.20 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned. 



Washington, D. C, February 19, 190^. 
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward L. Hamil- 
ton in the chair. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. McGuire. 

STATEMENT OF HON. B. S. M'GTTIRE, DELEGATE FROM OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. McGuire. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
will refer briefl}^ to conditions in Oklahoma and also to conditions in 
the Indian Territor}^ in connection with the presentation of the state- 
hood matter. I should like to say to the committee that I at least 
have an opportunity to know and ought to know something of the 
conditions in both of those Territories. 

It has been about twent3^-three years since I took up nry residence 
adjacent to the Osage Indian Reservation, which is now a part of 
Oklahoma, on the Kansas line, near the 96th meridian. For a number 
of 3^ears m}^ business called me into the Indian Territory, as well as 
Oklahoma, immediately thereafter. My residence was adjacent to 
that Territory until ten years ago, when I moved to Oklahoma, where 
I now reside. Shortly after I took up my residence in Oklahoma I 
engaged in a business which took me to every county of that Territory 
once or twice, or more, a year. 

Mr. Keid. By the Territor}^ 3"ou mean Oklahoma? 

Mr. McGuire. Oklahoma. I have practiced law in every county of 
the Territory; have been with the grand and petit jurors, with the 
court witnesses, and I think I am familiar with conditions generalh^ 
in Oklahoma. 

In saying this, Mr. Chairman, I do not make any pretension to know 
more of the conditions in those two Territories than anyone else, but 
hj ^N?i\ of suggesting that I at least have had an opportunity not onh^ 
to know of the population and the physical features of the country, 
but to familiarize myself in general with all conditions. 

Mr. Lloyd. If it does not interrupt you, Mr. McGuire, I would 
like to have you state what opportunity 3'ou have had to acquaint your- 
self with conditions in the Indian Territorv, as I understand your 
statement applies to Oklahoma. 

Mr. McGuire. There has never been, I think since 1881, anv year 



232 STATEHOOD FOK OKLAHOMA. 

that I have not been through ever}^ nation of the Indian Territor}^, 
passing back and forth one way or the other. More particularly am 
I familiar with conditions in the north half of the Indian Territor3\ 
I have some familiarity at the present time with conditions in the south 
half of the Indian Territory, but being adjacent thereto, traveling 
back and forth over the different roads which run through that coun- 
try, as I say, there has never been a year that I have not been back 
and forth and familiar with the conditions in the towns, talking with 
the people who reside there. 

There is one condition which existed in the early settlement of Okla- 
homa and which partiall}^ exists at this time, a condition which would 
be felt by ever}^ taxpayer in the Indian Territory should there be 
simultaneous statehood of those two Territories, to which I desire to 
call the attention of the committee. Every county in Oklahoma at 
this time has a debt of greater or less proportion. That debt was cre- 
ated in every instance at a time when there was no taxable real estate 
except in the cities. The same condition temporaril}^ prevailed in 
Oklahoma in each of the counties at their early settlement which would 
prevail, universally, in the Indian Territory if the}^ come at that time 
and have simultaneous statehood with us. That condition is this: All 
lands in Oklahoma were public lands prior to the time that the settler 
proved up and obtained his patent in fee, prior to the time that that 
land was taxable, and in every single instance in every county of the 
Territor}^ that burden weighed heavily upon the people, and the indebt- 
edness created in everj^ county of Oklahoma was created when we did 
not have taxable real estate, and that condition prevails in the Indian 
Territory and will prevail in the Indian Territory if they come as a 
State with Oklahoma and will prevail for years yet to come. 

That is one of the conditions, Mr. Chairman, that we have to meet 
at the present time. It is unfortunate. The like has never existed 
in this countrj^ before. It perhaps will never exist in an}^ epoch of 
our history yet to come in the consideration of any Territory; but the 
Indians have gone there and it has been regarded as Indian country. 
The Curtis act provides that those Indians shall take all the land except 
that in the cities, and that that land shall be exempt from taxation, and 
that is in keeping with what has been the polic}^ of the Government in 
dealing with every Indian tribe in ever}^ State and Territory in the 
Union. 

Mr. Lloyd. In that connection, allow me to ask you this question, 
Mr. McGuire. For that purpose were the several debts of the various 
counties contracted '^ 

Mr. McGuiRE. For the purpose of maintaining count}^ government. 

Mr. Lloyd. The ordinar}^ running expenses? 

Mr. McGuiRE. The ordinary running expenses of the county. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do they include the building of court-houses and pub- 
lic institutions? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Not necessarily, but partly in some cases. They 
are for the running of courts and the running of the county govern- 
ment in general. My own county, Pawnee County, prior to the time 
that we had taxable real estate, ran behind, and we were bonded for 
that indebtedness. We have an unfortunate condition existing in my 
county 3^et that does not exist in every county in Oklahoma. 

The Pawnee Indians originally occupied the country which is now 
within the boundaries of Pawnee County, and they took their allot- 



I 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 233 

ments. In that countiy the valle}' land is the most productive. In 
many instances the}^ took large sections of countr}^, perhaps an entire 
township in one bod}^ being taken b}" different Indians in their allot- 
ments. That land is yet, in my county, exempt from taxation and 
will continue in that condition. That works a hardship upon the 
people, but all public land is now deeded. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is there any limit of the time ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No limit to the time — absolutely none. The Pawnee 
gets his land in fee in twenty-one 3^ears from the opening of that 
countr^^, I believe it is, but there is no provision that he shall ever pay 
one dollar of tax upon his real estate. , 

Mr. Reid. Is there an}^ provision that he shall not? 

Mr. McGuiRE. There is none that he shall not, but there is no pro- 
vision that he shall pay a dollar of real-estate tax. Where those 
Indian allotments are we find this condition still existing. Thev do 
not build a schoolhouse. They can not build a schoolhouse. They 
never have built a schoolhouse. They do not organize school districts. 
That condition is of daily observation in m}^ county. 

Mr. Lloyd. Who occupies the land^ 

Mr. McGuiRE. Persons who have gone there and leased from the 
Indians — just the same condition which prevails in ever}^ reservation 
in the Indian Territory, with each of the Five Civilized Tribes. They 
can not build a schoolhouse; they can not bond for a schoolhouse; and 
that condition would exist throughout the Indian Territor}^ if 3'ou let 
those people come simultaneously with the people of Oklahoma. 

The Chairman. Will you insert in 3^our remarks, Mr. McGuire, 
when you print them, the provisions of the Curtis bill relating to the 
nontaxation of Indian lands, of which you spoke? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You spoke of that, and it might be of use to the 
committee and save the committee research if 3'ou could insert them 
in your remarks. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I will be glad to do that. 

Mr. Spalding. Let us see a little about this taxation of real estate. 
You say the law neither prohibits nor permits the taxation of the real 
estate ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. For twenty-one years, so far as the Pawnee Indians 
are concerned. It does prohibit the taxation of real estate as long as 
the Indian has it. 

Mr. Reid. Until he gets his land in fee? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Until he gets his land in fee. 

Mr. Spalding. That is what I supposed, but I understood 3'ou 
difierentl}^ 

Mr. McGuiRE. Now, Mr. Chairman, I spoke of the condition of 
Indian allotments in 1113^ count}^ This condition prevails in a mini- 
mized form in Pawnee County and in Pa3'ne Count}" and in some other 
counties where Indians have taken their allotments in Oklahoma just 
as it w^ould prevail universally in the Indian Territory" if they come in 
under the provisions of the Quav bill or the Robinson bill. But that 
is not all. There is another condition in Oklahoma at this time 

Mr. Reid. Pardon me for interrupting you again. That is the con- 
dition that obtains in j^our county in Oklahoma ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes. 



234 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Reid. How many other counties are there in Oklahoma simi- 
larly situated in that respect? 

Mr. McGuiRE. The same condition prevails in Payne Count}^ Lin- 
coln County, Pottawatomie County, Kiowa County, Comanche County, 
County, Blaine County, and possibly one or two others. 

Mr. Reid. What percentage of the entire number of counties ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. The percentage differs in different counties. I pre- 
sume there is as large a percentage of allotted land in Pawnee County 
as in an}^ county in Oklahoma, and we have felt the burden from the 
ver}^ inception of organized government in that count}^ b}^ reason of 
that condition of things. 

Mr. Lloyd. Can us give us what percentage of the land in Pawnee 
County is held b\^ the Indians under allotment? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I can not, Mr. Lloyd; but I was looking at a map 
the other da}^ which indicated the allotments, and I judge near 10 per 
cent. 

Mr. Lloyd. How much of the count}^ of Pawnee is there that is not 
organized in school districts ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Wherever j^ou find Indian allotments taken in a 
body, sa}" a township or two townships. 

Mr. Lloyd. Are they usually in a body? 

Mr. McGuiRE. They are generally along the streams, but where the 
bottoms of the streams broaden or where there is a confluence of 
streams, usually it comprises more territory, and in those locations 
you find no schoolhouses. It is not an unusual thing where these 
parties are located on Indian allotments to find the boys and girls 
riding their horses 4 or 5 miles over to some adjoining district of 
less value, wdiere the real estate is perhaps not worth one-half as 
much as the Indian allotment, but where the}^ have been able to tax 
real estate and to bond and build schoolhouses. They have schools, 
and the parties living on Indian allotments have to go 3 or tt or 5, and 
in some cases 6 miles to school. 

Mr. Lloyd. Is it your opinion that the Indian Territoiy is entitled 
to the benefit of the Territorial school fund ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. What do the individuals do who receive that fund, or 
are entitled to it, in the districts where there are no schools? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I do not know just what the arrangement is. 

A Member. They are attached by the superintendents. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I was going to make the suggestion that they are 
probably attached to organized districts; but, Mr. Lloyd, there is a 
false impression prevailing in regard to that school fund in Oklahoma, 
as to the extent to which it contributes to universal education or to 
the support of common schools. Some one remarked the other da}^ 
that the Robinson bill provides 'f 5, 000,000 for the building up. organi- 
zation, and maintenance of common schools in the Indian Territory. 

At present I think w^e have an income from the school lands of 
Oklahoma of perhaps $1.30 per capita. We will presume there are 
50 pupils in an organized district. There is $65, we will sa}^, that that 
one district is getting from the general school fund of Oklahoma. 
You can see how far that goes to the support of common schools. 
The interest on the $5,000,000 Avould not organize and maintain com- 
mon schools in the Indian Territory. The interest on $10,000,000 or 
on $20,000,000 would not do it, and 3^ou could run it into the billions, 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 235 

and you would not have common schools maintained in that count ly. 
We maintain our common schools by direct tax in Oklahoma, and this 
school fund, while it is an assistance, would perhaps run the schools 
not more than one month in the yeSiY. So you can see what that would 
be, so far as common schools are concerned, in the Indian Territory. 

It is an unfortunate condition, gentlemen. The like has never been 
known in the histor}^ of this countr}^, and I say there is no wa}' out of 
it. You have not remedied it if you bring- in Oklahoma. You have 
not built up your common schools. You have not put your real estate 
in a position to be taxed, and it Avill not be taxed. 

Mr. Spalding. On this question of allotments — when were these 
allotments made? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Where? 

Mr. Spalding. In Pawnee County, for instance ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. In Pawnee County the countiy was opened for set- 
tlement nine A^ears ago. 

Mr. Spalding. When were the allotments made ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I do not remember; a few 3^ears before that. In 
1892, some gentleman is kind enough to suggest. 

Mr. Spalding. The Indians can not get title in fee to allotted lands 
for twent^^-one or twenty-live 3^ears after the}^ take them in severalty ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Spalding. And neither can they alienate them during that time ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, sir. 

Mr. Spalding. And the}^ are not taxable during that time ? \ 

Mr. McGuiRE. They are not taxable not onh^ during that time, but I 
Wlv impression is, Mr. Spalding, and I think research will contirm the 
position that I am now about to take, that when they obtain their title 
in fee that is nontaxable property with the Indians. 

Mr. Spalding. So long as he owns it. \ 

Mr. McGuiRE. So long as he does not dispose of it. j 

Mr. Spalding. But when he does dispose of it, it then becomes / 
taxable? ' 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, I desire to call attention to some things which have 
been suggested with regard to the disposition of this land. It has 
been said that certain Indian tribes, including the Creek Nation, can 
alienate some of this land from some definite period in the future, say 
live 3^ears. The same condition prevails in the Cherokee Nation at a 
later date, and over in the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations at a still 
further date. We have about 52,000 Indians in the Indian Territory — 
persons of Indian blood — according to the census. It has been said 
here, and rightfully said, b}^ these gentlemen from the Indian Territor}^, 
that a large percentage of those people have a veiy limited amount of 
Indian blood; and I want to observe further that a large percentage 
of those people have just as good business tact as perhaps any mem- 
ber of this committee or any person present. They are given that 
real estate. They take their allotment and it is nontaxable. The 
land is continuoush^ enhancing in value. It cost them nothing. It 
can not burn up and can not blow away. Can you suggest any reason 
why those gentlemen of good business judgment and of little Indian 
blood are going to dispose of that land even though the Government 
ma}^ say to them "Turn it loose if 3^ou desire?" 



236 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Spalding. Under your laws, when do the Indians become citizens, 
if ever? 

Mr. McGuiRE. The Indians are permitted to vote as soon as they 
take their allotment in Oklahoma. The}^ always have done it. 

Mr. Russell. You spoke of the land being- nontaxable. Is there 
an}^ provision of law b}^ which you could not tax a leasehold interest 
in it? 

Mr. McGuiRE. There is no provision of law b}^ which you could 
not tax a leasehold interest, I think, Mr. Russell; but there is no pro- 
vision of law by which you may tax an3^thing but the personal prop- 
erty. That is as far as the Oklahoma legislature has ever gone — simpl}" 
to tax the personal property. 

Mr. Wilson. What is to prevent the legislature from passing the 
law ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. There is nothing to prevent the legislature, perhaps, 
from passing a law to tax the leasehold, but the question is, how much 
taxes are 3^ou going to get, even though you pass such a law ? 

The Chairman. Is there any question of the good faith of the 
Indians involved in this question? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I think there is, and I was going to come to that 
later; but I want to call the attention of the committee to this condi- 
tion of affairs. Ordinarily the man who goes into theTerritoiy and 
takes an Indian lease is the man who is unable to bu}^ a farm — unable 
to purchase a quarter section. As a rule, he is not a man of wealth. 
He has but little personal property to tax. That condition prevails 
where 3^ou find an Indian lease in Oklahoma. The same condition pre- 
vails at the present time and will continue to prevail where you find 
an Indian lease in the Indian Territoiy, and that comprises the entire 
Indian Territory. If a man has money to buy^ a quarter section of 
land he usuall}^ goes where it can be sold, where it can be had, where 
he can purchase it. The parties going to Oklahoma and going on 
Indian leases are persons, as a rule, who have but little property. 

I have spoken of the Indian leases. I want to call your attention, 
gentlemen, to another condition which exists in Oklahoma that I think 
will confirm the position I have taken with reference to these Indian 
allotments. There is what are known in Oklahoma as indemnit}^ 
school lands. These are lieu lands taken in large bodies. Entire 
townships have been taken in different parts of Oklahoma, and there 
are two or three different places in that Territory where the land is 
just as productive as you find it anywhere in that countr\^ One of 
the burdens now being complained of b}^ the people who have leased 
that school land where townships have been taken — there has been 
some discussion of it before the committee and you are more or less 
familiar with that condition — is that they can not bond them, the}^ can 
not build a schoolhouse, and the}^ can not organize a school district. 
I have been petitioned time and again from those localities to give those 
people, if possible, some relief from that condition of affairs. That is 
exactly what you are going to find in the Indian Territory if the}^ 
come, and it applies to every community in the Indian Territdr}". 
There is no section of countr}^ exempt from that condition of affairs. 
That would exist if you would bring those people to Oklahoma. 

You do not give them relief. I am as anxious perhaps as those 
gentlemen residing over there for some kind of relief for the people 
of the Indian Territory; but you can put the burden upon Oklahoma, 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 237 

and you will not have broug'ht the people of that country relief. You 
can make them a State with us, but 3^ou will not have given them tax- 
able real estate with which to support their government. You have 
not only increased the burdens of every taxpayer of Oklahoma, but 
you have increased and multiplied the burdens of every taxpa^'er in 
the Indian Territory. 

The Chairman. Could 3^ou relieve them b}^ giving them separate 
statehood ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Xo, sir; you will not relieve them, Mr. Hamilton, by 
giving them a separate statehood, and, however anxious those gentle- 
men may be for statehood, it is a fact that at this time that country is 
in no condition for statehood. 

The Chairman. When could 3^ou give them relief, in your view, Mr. 
McGuire ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. There is no relief for those people for years to 
come. There is no relief for the people of the Indian Territory, how- 
ever anxious the}^ may be about it. 

The Chairman. Have 3'ou a specific time in your mind when there 
could be am" relief for them? 

Mr. McGuiRE. There would be a slow sale of the land in the Indian 
Territor}' under the present arrangements. 

The (yHAiRMAX. And must that be postponed until after twenty-one 
years before relief could commence? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Not in every condition. There is some land selling 
now in the Creek Nation, and the onh^ thing to do, so far as I know, 
the only suggestion I can make to the General Government would be 
to stimulate the sale of that land in eveiy possible way; to stimulate 
it in the Creek Nation where they can sell now. It is being retarded, 
as a matter of fact. The process is very slow. The policy, so far as 
the Secretary" of the Interior informs me, with him is to protect the 
Indian to the last extremity. 

The Chairman. The chief difficulty you have discussed so far is the 
school difficulty, as I understand you? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir: and that is the relief that they have con- 
tinuously talked about in the Indian Territory. 

The Chairman. And you think the relief suggested in the bill which 
has been referred to this committee is not adequate ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. It is not adequate. It does not bring relief. 

The Chairman. Is there an}^ relief along that line ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. There is no relief, Mr. Chairman, except this one 
thing. The onh^ thing for the Government to do is to stimulate, so 
far as it can, the sale of that land. 

The Chairman. And that will take place as well under one form of 
government as another. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Just as well under one form of government as 
another; but if you impose upon those people at this time the burden 
of self-government you increase their taxes, you multiply their adver- 
sities, 3'ou increase their hardships, without giving them the relief 
desired. 

The Chairman. Are there not some other institutions that the}^ 
need in the Indian Territory ver}" much ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I do not know that I comprehend, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Prisons, asylums, and institutions of that kind? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I think that is true, and if those things were to come 



238 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

with statehood, you would have to tax the people to support them. 
The Government should give them some relief, perhaps, along that 
line, and could give them some relief. I presume the Government 
could establish for them an asylum for the insane. The Government 
at this time is spending more money for government in the Indian 
Territor}^ than it is spending in any eight States of the Union, so I am 
informed, for the prosecution of Federal cases. If you take that away 
from the Government of the United States — and it is certainly better 
able to bear the expense than Oklahoma — 5^ou simply add that to the 
burden of the people of the Indian Territory and the people of Oklahoma. 

Mr. Spalding. Mr. McGuire, stated briefly, I understand your 
proposition to be this: That, by reason of the exemption of a very large 
part of the real estate of the Indian Territor}- from taxation, there is 
not taxable property enough there to bear the burdens of statehood 
for the Indian Territory alone without the rate being very excessive 
and burdensome on the propert}" that is taxed? 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is the position I take, Mr. Spalding. 

Mr. Spalding. And for the same reason, if it is annexed to Okla- 
homa, they can not bear their proper share of the burden of support- 
ing State government. 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is the idea I am attempting to conve}^ 

Mr. Reid. While you are on that point I want to understand it 
clearly. Can 3^ou institute a comparison between the conditions as 
they obtain in Oklahoma and as they obtain in the Indian Territor}^ 
as relating to the amount of taxable property in each, and what the 
rate of taxation would be? It has been stated here that the taxable 
values of such propert}^ as could be taxed would be sufficient. And I 
also want you to bear in mind the suggestion made by Mr. Russell just 
now, that the leaseholds which are held throughout the Indian Territory 
are not exempt from taxation. The}^ constitute the present element of 
value, if I understand. It has been stated that there is enough taxable 
property in the Indian Territor}^ to support a State government there. 
You have suggested that a number of counties in Oklahoma are in the 
condition that would obtain universally in the Indian Territory. Tak- 
ing those things into consideration, I want to know what the difference 
in the rate of taxation would be, and as compared with the general rate 
in other States also. 

Mr. MoGuiRE. If 3^ou will pardon me, I did not intend to say there 
was a number of counties in Oklahoma at this time in the condition 
in which we would find the people of Indian Territoiy , should they 
come; but they have been in that condition. They were in that con- 
dition when we incurred the county indebtedness which has been 
incurred in Oklahoma Territory, and it was while that condition pre- 
vailed in the different counties that we did incur the indebtedness 
experienced by the people in Oklahoma Territory; but we have gone 
away from that condition. 

Mr. Reid. How did you get away from it ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Wh}^, the real estate has become taxable in Okla- 
homa. People have proven up on their claims. Homesteaders have 
their patents in fee, and in nearly every section of Oklahoma for a 
number of years we have been getting real estate taxation, and it has 
lifted the burden from the shoulders of the taxpayer in that country, 
but it can never come, at least for a dozen years, in the Indian Terri- 



L 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 239 

toiy to the extent that the people can have even the slightest expecta- 
tion of relief. 

Mr. Robinson. Let us see about that. Since Christmas the Secre- 
tar}" of the Interior has been providing at the rate of a thousand acres 
a da}" transfers of lands from the Indians to grantees, which opens 
that thousand acres a day to taxation. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Is that from an official report, Mr. Robinson, or does 
it eA^olve itself from the imagination of some editor? 

Mr. Robinson. Do you say the Secretary of the Interior has not 
been approving deeds at the rate of 10 a da3^ which involves a thou- 
sand acres a day in the Creek Nation? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, I do not; but I do not concede that he has until 
I get it officially. If you have some paper that is simply jumping at 
a conclusion or making any kind of a statement, it is not necessarily 
the fact. There have been a good many reckless statements made in 
reference to this matter. There have been a good many reckless state- 
ments in reference to the population. 

Mr. Robinson. Under 3"our laws you tax houses and barns erected 
by lessees of lands, do you not? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, sir; under the law we do not. 

Mr. Robinson. Improvements, then, by lessees are not taxable? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. Could the}" be made taxable? 

Mr. McGuiRE. They are not taxable in my Territory. The Supreme 
Court has already passed upon that proposition. 

Mr. Robinson. They are in the Indian Territory now, are they not? 

Mr. McGuiRE. There is no law, Mr. Robinson, by which those 
things could be taxed, and the courts have decided in those cases 
where an Indian takes his allotment and the house is on that allotment, 
the house is not personal property. 

Mr. Robinson. Your Indian condition with reference to the Indians 
being tied up, or not having the right to sell, is much more severe than 
that of the Indian Territory? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, sir. 

Mr. Robinson. Your Indians are tied from giving away their lands 
for twenty-one years? 

Mr. McGuiRE. In some cases they are. 

Mr. Robinson. But in the Indian Territory it is not so, is it? 

Mr. McGuiRE. It is largely true in the Indian Territory. The 
Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians can not alienate their lands for twenty- 
one years from now, as I understand, under the Curtis Act. Twenty- 
one years from now they will have at least half of their lands. Mr. 
Bixbee, will you state just the condition in the Choctaw and Chicka- 
saw nations? 

Mr. BixBY. In the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations 6,000,000 acres 
out of the 11,000,000 in those two Indian nations will be inalienable 
for twenty-one years. The remainder of the lands the Indians can 
alienate one-quarter in one year from date of deed, one-quarter in 
three years from date of deed, and the remainder in live years. 

Mr. Robinson. How many acres? Give us the total so alienable. 

Mr. Bixbee. A little over 5,000,000 acres. In other words, one-half 
of an Indian's allotment in the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations is a 
homestead and can not be alienated for twenty-one years, or during the 
lifetime of the allottee. There would be about a million acres surplus, 



240 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

which will be sold under sealed bids and, of course, taxable as soon as 
sold. In the Creek Nation the Indian may sell three-quarters of his 
allotment, or 120 acres, with the consent of the Secretary of the Interior. 

Mr. Robinson. How much is the total amount of land opened up 
under that rule? 

Mr. BiXBEE. That probably opens up a million and a half acres in 
the Creek Nation. 

Mr. Robinson. How is it going now? How has it been going in 
reference to the approval of the Secretar}^ of the Interior by these 
conve3^ances ? 

Mr. BixBEE. Up to the time that I left the Territory, which was 
about a month ago, it had been going ver}^ slowly, in m}^ judgment; 
but that was largely because of the fact that the Secretar}" did not 
have the means to engage a sufficient number of appraisers to appraise 
the land. He requires the land to be appraised before it is sold on a 
commercial basis. 

Mr. Robinson. How is it going now ? 

Mr. Bixbee, I can not tell you. In the Cherokee Nation the Indian 
can not sell any of his allotment for five 3^ears, under present condi- 
tions. Forty acres of his allotment will be inalienable for twenty-one 
years. In the Seminole Nation he can not sell at all. 

Mr. Robinson. Just a moment. What does that release, then, in five 
years in the nation 3"ou have just mentioned? 

Mr. Bixbee. It releases practically one-half, perhaps a little more 
than one-half, of the Cherokee Nation. 

Mr. Robinson. In round numbers, about how many acres? 

Mr. BixBr. About 2,500,000 acres. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Mr. Robinson, I desire to call your attention to 
this condition. You say how much does that release? The mere 
fact that the Indian may be given an opportunity to sell one-half his 
land in five 3^ears does not mean that that will go on the market, by 
any means. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of Indian land 
in my count}^ that could be sold to-day, but the Indian does not choose 
to sell. 

Mr. Robinson. I recognize that, but I would like to hear from Mr. 
Bixbee about the Seminole Nation land. I think it is useful to have 
it all. 

Mr. BiXBY. The Seminoles can not sell any of their land under 
present conditions. There is no provision of law for the sale of Sem- 
inole lands. The homestead in the Seminole Nation, under the pres- 
ent law, is not alienable at any time. The Indian is to hold it in 
perpetuity. 

Mr. Robinson. But what is it to be in 1906 with the Seminoles? 

Mr. BixBY. I presume it will possibly be alienated. The}^ get their 
deeds, anyway, but I am not sure about that under the provisions of 
law. 

Mr. Robinson. Do they not take it in 1906, free from all restrictions 
in alienation ? 

Mr. BixBY. That may be so. I would not want to say positively 
that the}^ could alienate. I am not certain about just what the law 
means. 

Mr. Reid. Mr. McGuire, I will tr}^ not to interrupt you again after 
I inquire about this one feature of it. Do I understand that these 
restrictions upon alienation reach to the question of taxation, also ? 



k 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 241 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes. 

Mr. Reid. They are based on treaty obligations, if I understand. 
That is, the}^ are inalienable and are nontaxable b}" virtue of agree- 
ments made with the Indians? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I think they are; not onh^ on treat}^ obligations, 
but by statute as well. 

Mr. Reid. Statutes are made in pursuance, if I understand it, of 
agreements made with the Indians? 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is right. 

Mr. Reid. In the course of the development of that country, if it 
becomes, which it would, the interest of the Indian as well as others 
to contribute to public institutions and a State government, is there 
anything which makes an exception in the cases of these treaties, as 
against an}^ others, why the Government can not, acting in the capacity 
of a guardian toward a ward, violate those treaties and make them 
taxable for the good of the Indian himself? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I think the Government would have a perfect right, 
even without the consent of the Indians, to pass a general law taxing real 
estate held by an Indian, as long as the Government does not A^iolate 
a present treat}^ relation or obligation with the Indian, and it might 
even then have that authorit}*; but that V70uld scarceW be, in my judg- 
ment, a possibility, Mr. Reid. The Government has enacted laws 
relating to Indian tribes for all time in pursuance of some treat}^ rela- 
tion with that Indian tribe. In this particular the Government has 
stood upon the high moral plane of dealing fairh' with those people, 
showing them every possible consideration, and there is nothing now 
in connection with any of those Indian tribes which would suggest a 
different polic}" to me. As long as the Indians are asking that they 
hold these lands without taxation, my judgment is that the Govern- 
ment is going to show them that consideration. While it might do 
otherwise, it might have done many things it has not done. 

But we want to dispose of this condition, viewing things in that 
country as we may naturally expect them to be in the future. We 
have to look for a natural way out, and we must expect the Govern- 
ment to show the people every possible consideration, or eveiy reason- 
able and fair consideration, and to treat them in the future largely as 
they have treated them in the past, and they have not been taxed in 
the_^ast. In my judgment the Government is not, in the near future 
at least, going to impose upon those people the burden of taxation so 
far as their real estate is concerned. 

Now, we talk about the time w^hen they may alienate the land in the 
Creek Nation and the time when they may alienate the land in the 
Cherokee Nation and in the Chocktaw and Chickasaw and Seminole 
nations. It is not so much a question as to the time when they may 
alienate or what percentage they may alienate. The question is, What 
are those people going to do with that land when they have an oppor- 
tunit}^ to alienate it? It has been contended here that those people, as 
a rule, are largel}^ of good business judgment, and I do not know of an 
Indian in nw county. Pawnee County, aside from the full-bloods, who 
desires at this time to dispose of his real estate. They are not doing 
it. Hundreds of thousands of acres are alienable at this moment in 
m}^ section of Oklahoma Territory, but thej^ do not alienate it where 
the}^ do business on business principles. 

The only Indian, gentlemen, in my country who is alienating his 

OKLA 16 



242 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

land is the full-blood who has but little conception of the value of a 
dollar, who would sell his quarter-section to-da^^ for f2,500 or $3,000, 
and within a week would not have a dollar of the money. That is the 
kind of people who are alienating in m}^ section, and that is the kind 
of people who would alienate in the Indian Territorj^, and that is the 
kind of people whom the General Government are going to protect 
and ought to protect. The fellow who can take care of himself — the 
man who has business judgment — is not alienating real estate. That 
is the very best possible investment he can make at this time. 

Mr. Robinson. Mr. McGuire, on two propositions: First, would not 
good business judgment suggest to the holders of vast estates that if a 
portion of the communit}^ was enlarged, and the population increased 
by an alienation of one-half, the balance would, b}- increased value, 
become more valuable to him; and, secondly, if they are not alienated, 
would not a taxation on leasehold interests drive them to alienation 
and protect them thus, as good business men, against their own folly? 

Mr. McGuiRE. As I say, Mr. Robinson, 1 could imagine a condi- 
tion of things which is not likely to occur, in m}" judgment. 

Mr. Robinson. I mean in the realms of business. Is it not dictated 
by prudence? 

Mr. McGuiEE. I think not. I can see how one man, we will say, 
holding 3,000 acres of land might sell a part of it and make the rest 
more valuable, and I can see under those conditions how he might dis- 
pose of it and have a good reason for disposing of a part of it; but I 
can not see how that condition is likely to occur. The chances are 
that those parties holding whatever they are given with the different 
arrangements with the different tribes will not have a cumbersome 
body of land, but they will have a bod}^ of land that is continuously 
enhancing in value. They will have an investment that is absolutely 
perfect, so .far as reliability is concerned, and I could conceive of 
hardly an}" condition that would encourage the disposition of this 
land. I would like to see it done. 

Mr. Robinson. Suppose 200,000 people would move from Okla- 
homa, would that increase the value of the land ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I can not conceive of an}^ reason why 200,000 people 
should leave Oklahoma. 

Mr. Robinson. But if 200,000 should come into Oklahoma, would 
not that increase the value of land, and could the}" come in without 
the purchase of land? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir; they could; and if 200,000 were to come 
it would increase the value of land, and they would continue to come 
in the Indian Territory, no matter how adverse the conditions were 
there, and the value of land would continue to increase, and the holder 
of that land w^ould continue to get the benefit of the enhancement in 
value and hang to it more tenaciously by reason of that fact. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt you a moment, Mr. McGuire? 
This is in relation to the Seminole Nation, and in relation to their title 
to lands, about which Mr. Bixbee was not quite certain. I hold in my 
hand the treaty, and I want to call your attention to a clause so that it 
may go into your remarks and be accessible to the committee. It is 
as follows: 

When the tribal government shall cease to exist, the principal chief last elected by 
said tribe shall execute, under his hand and the seal of the nation, and deliver to 
each allottee, a deed conveying to him all the right, title, and interest of the said 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 243 

nation and the members thereof in and to the lands so allotted to him, and the Sec- 
retary of the Interior shall approve such deed, and the same shall therepon operate 
as relinquishment of the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
land embraced in said conveyance, and as a guaranty by the United States of the 
title of said lands to the allottee; and the acceptance of such deed by the allottee 
shall be a relinquishment of his title to and interest in all other lands belonging to 
the tribe, except such as may have been excepted from allotment and held in com- 
mon for other purposes. Each allottee shall designate one tract of 40 acres, which 
shall by the terms of the deed, be made inalienable and nontaxable as a homestead 
in perpetuity. 

So that gives a title in fee to each Indian without conditions? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir. 

The Chairmax. I simph' wanted to make it clear as to the Seminole 
Nation. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand an extract from 
the bill, as passed, admitting Kansas to the Cnion. At the time of 
that admission there were a number of Indian tribes and Indian reser- 
vations in that State, and it might not be uninteresting to the commit- 
tee to know just what the provision was with reference to the tribes 
at that time. Avhen Kansas was admitted. The Osage Indians at the 
time of the admission of Kansas were in Kansas. The Osage Indians 
are now in Oklahoma, and I indicate here on the map where that res 
ervation is. 

The Chairmax. That is the northeast corner of Oklahoma i 

Mr. McGuiRE. The northeast corner of Oklahoma. The provision 
in the Kansas act was this: 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the State of Kansas shall be, and is hereby declared to be, 
one of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal foot- 
ing with the original States in all respects whatever. And the said State shall con- 
sist of all the territory included within the following boundaries, to wit: Beginning 
at a point on the western boundary of the State of Missouri where the thirty-seventh 
parallel of north latitude crosses the same; thence west on said parallel to the twenty- 
fifth meridian of longitude west of "Washington; thence north on said meridian to the 
fortieth parallel of latitude; thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of 
the State of Missouri; thence south with the western boundary of said State to the 
place of beginning: Froridtd, That nothing contained in the said constitution 
respecting the boundary of said State shall be construed to impair the rights of per- 
son or property now pertaining to the Indians in said territory, so long as such 
I'ights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and such 
Indians, or to include any territory which, by treaty with such Ind.ian tribes is not, 
without the consent of said tribe, to be included within the territorial limits or 
jurisdiction of any State or Territory; but all such territory shall be excepted out of 
the boundaries, and constitute no part of the State of Kansas until said tribe shall sig- 
nify their assent to the President of the United States to be included within said 
State, or to affect the authority of the Government of the United States to make any 
regulation respecting such Indians, their lands, property, or other rights, by treaty, 
law, or otherwise, which it would have been competent to make if this act had 
never passed. 

There is a provision, Mr. Chairman, with reference to the same 
Indian tribes which at that time occupied a portion of the State of 
Kansas. To compel these tribes at this time to take on a form of gov- 
ernment which would to them and to the citizens of that coimtry be 
embarrassing, which would not bring to those people the relief to which 
they are entitled at this time, which would take the burden away from 
the great Federal Government, which is abundantly able to care for 
those people, and saddle it upon the Territory of Oklahoma, is unfair 
to every taxpayer in the Territory, and equally unfair and aggressive 
and a verv hard thing to do with the people who at this time reside in 
the Indian Territory. But you say those people are demanding relief. 



244 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

It has been stated before the committee within the last week that the 
representatives of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, the real estate 
holders in that Territory, have put themselves on record within the 
past three months unanimously against the admission of that Territory 
at this time. 

The Chairman. Mr. McGuire, with reference to Kansas, the Osage 
Indians were in Kansas at the time it became a State? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And subsequent!}^ the Federal Government made a 
treaty with them whereby it took of them their lands at a certain price 
per acre, $1.25, was it not? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I do not know. 

The Chairman. It was 11.25, and that land was thereupon opened 
up to settlement. The Osage Indians then moved to Oklahoma and 
are now the richest people per capita in the United States, are they not? 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is a fact; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And perhaps anywhere in the world. 

Mr. AIcGuiRE. That is a fact, I presume. 

The Chairman. That wealth was realized from this 11.25 per acre 
of lands purchased from them? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, sir; not altogether. 

The Chairman. Whst other source of income did they have? 

Mr. McGuiRE. They had lands in Missouri. The}^ are Indians that 
originally came from St. Louis. They have alwa3^s been a very 
wealthy tribe. They were located at different places in Missouri, and 
had gathered this wealth from time to time. They then went into 
Kansas and sold their lands there, and the accumulation of this great 
wealth from time to time was not only in Kansas, but in Missouri and 
wherever they have been found. 

The Chairman. Perhaps that is so. 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is the cause of their great wealth at this time. 

Mr. Powers. What are they supposed to be worth per capita? 

Mr. McGuire. I think there is a fund now on deposit with the 
Federal Government, only the interest of which is to be drawn at 5 
per cent, of about $17,500 for each man, woman, and child. 

The Chairman. How man}^ acres of land, Mr. McGuire? 

Mr. McGuire. They will receive under the present proposed 
treaty, which is now being projected and arranged, between about 
twenty Indians at this time, with the Indian Commissioner 650 acres 
for ever}^ man, woman, and child. I might make this observation, 
Mr. Chairman. I have been adjacent to the Osage Indians for 
twentj^-three years and am acquainted with most of them and know 
something of their habits. 

Mr. Spalding. How manv are there ? 

Mr. McGuire. All told, about 3,000. While they are the richest 
people in the world in one sense, they are the blanketed Indians that 
were spoken of the other day, and many of them, not all of them, are 
the poorest people in another sense. You take the full blood and in 
many cases it is not how much they can pay, but how much credit can 
they get; and while those people are wealthy and receive quarterly 
pa3^ments of this annuity, yet many of them are continuousl}^ embar- 
rassed from a financial point of view because the}^ are not prepared to 
do business and have no business judgment. 

Mr. Spalding. What proportion of them are in that condition? 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 245 

Mr. McGuiRE. I should judge three-fourths of the full bloods. 

Mr. Spalding. That would be less than a fourth of the whole. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Less than a fourth of the whole. Then I might 
take the other side of it with this statement. There are many persons 
on the Osage Indian Reservation, where they are holding at this time 
the land in common, and they have what is known as a possessory 
right. They can go and fence as much land as they desire for agricul- 
tural purposes. I believe that is right, is it not, Mr. Palmer? 

Mr. Palmer. It was. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Until recent!}" they could fence as much land as they 
might desire for agricultural purposes, and the persons of better busi- 
ness judgment, including white men who have married in the reserva- 
tion, and the half-breeds and quarter-breeds, persons of less Indian 
blood, have taken up all that best land, and those people are able to take 
care of themselves anywhere. Those are the very kind of people who 
will hold for all time to come this 650 acres of land to the head and 
will never let it go until they can let it go upon a good business propo- 
sition, just like an3^one else. That condition largely" prevails in the 
Indian Territor}^, and that is wh}' I say it is not a question as to when 
this land is going to become alienable. The question is, Are jou going 
to get these parties to turn it loose ? 

The Chairman. We will have to suspend at this time, Mr. McGuire, 
but the committee will reassemble at 2 o'clock, when ^-ou ma}" resume 
your statement. 

The committee thereupon (at 11.50 a. m.) took a recess until 2 
o'clock p. m. 

AFTER RECESS. 

The committee reconvened at 2 o'clock p. m., Hon. Edward L. Ham- 
ilton in the chair. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BIRD S. McGUIRE, DELEGATE IN CONGRESS 
FROM THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, there was one inter- 
rogatory propounded this forenoon by a member of the committee 
which resulted in the reading of a newspaper clipping stating in effect 
that there were about a thousand quarter sections of land being dis- 
posed of in the Indian Territory daily. I believe that was the purport 
of the article. I hold in my hand a document headed "An interesting 
letter — Hon. Robert L. Owen addressing the Department in language 
both forcible and eloquent." It is dated Muscogee, Ind. T., Decem- 
ber 10, 1903. One extract from this statement, in the speech of Mr. 
Owen, reads like this: 

Of some 38 pieces of land offered for sale last week 28 pieces did not pass the bar- 
riers of the Indian agents because of no appraisement, or for other technical reasons. 
Only 10 pieces passed muster there, and no one knows whether any of these 10 
pieces will actually result in sale. 

Nearly three years have passed since these sales were authorized 
with the approval of the Interior Department, and out of the 1,600 
citizens of the Creek countrv they have succeeded in having three 
deeds approved. 

Mr. RoBiNSOX. At that point I will call 3^our attention to the fact 



246 STATEHOOD FOK OKLAHOMA. 

that ni}" inquir}^ related to the time from Christmas, which was fifteen 
da3'S later than the suggeston or date of your paper, and that since 
then my information is that the sales have been made in the form 1 
mentioned before in my inquiry. 

Mr. McGuiRE. It is a very easy matter, Mr. Chairman, to ascertain 
the facts with reference to the sales of real estate in the Indian Terri- 
tory, and that I will endeavor to do and get something official from 
the Department of the Interior before the committee has disposed 
finally of this question. 

But coming from that country, living adjacent to the Creek Nation, 
where these lands are, a statement at that place at this time that there 
were a thousand farms being sold a day would be positiveh^ startling 
in that country. 

I undertake to sa.}\ Mr. Chairman, that the bills which have been 
introduced, making the Indian Territory a State with Oklahoma, do 
not ofier the relief for the people of the Indian Territory evidentl}^ 
intended by those bills. The burden of the song of every person 
before this committee who has heretofore spoken for the Indian Ter- 
ritory and advocated its immediate admission to statehood has been 
that there were hundreds of thousands of school children in that coun- 
try in the rural districts, not in the cities, who have not at this time, 
and have never had, educational advantages, and they say "Give us 
statehood, immediate statehood, for this Territory in order that we 
may reach those children with schools." 

Now, if these bills when considered do not provide this relief they 
have certainl}- fallen short of the intention of the persons who framed 
them, and I say in the very face of the conditions that exist in Okla- 
homa to-day — not a theory, but in the very face of the conditions that 
exist in Oklahoma to-day in a minimized form — it would not build a 
single schoolhouse in the Indian Territory for 3^ears to come; they 
could not have a single school bond; they could not organize a school 
district; they could not maintain a school, and 3^ou have not given 
those people the relief that thev are expecting and the relief that they 
are entitled to, even if those bills pass and become law. 

But I will tell you what you have done. You have attached that 
country to Oklahoma, and you have placed upon the shoulders of 
every taxpayer in my Territory an additional burden, one that we 
ought not to carry. Those people in the Indian Territory are simply 
aboard a ship without a rudder, without a sail, without propelling 
power, and I do not blame them for wanting to board a modern ves- 
sel. But it does not give them relief; it does not organize their 
school districts. They can not vote a single bond for school purposes. 
That is the condition in Oklahoma, where we have allotments and 
idemnity lands. 

Mr. Moon. May I interrupt you to ask a question i 

Mr. McGuiRE. Certainly. 

Mr. Moon. You are opposed to the admission of Oklahoma and the 
Indian Territor}^ as one State, I believe? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Only conditionally, Mr. Moon. Oklahoma is at 
this time entitled to statehood, and more abundantly entitled to state- 
hood than any other Territory in all the histor}^ of this country at the 
time of its admission to the Union. 

Mr. Moon. I think so; but I wanted to get at this question 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 247 

Mr. McGuiRE. If 3^ou will pardon me a little further — one other 
statement and then you may finish your interrogatory. 

Mr. Moon. Very well. 

Mr. McGuiRE. The Indian Territory is disqualified, not by lack of 
numbers, not by lack of intelligence. However, the}" are not as high 
in that standard as the people of Oklahoma, according to the census. 
I think the present percentage of illiterates in Oklahoma is about 5, 
and there are about 16 per cent in the Indian Territory; but that 
does not disqualify them. They are disqualified b}^ reason of the 
unfortunate condition of their real estate at this time, and as it will be 
for years to come in that country. They can not support the govern- 
ment. 

Mr. Moon. You are supporting a bill, I believe, for single state- 
hood for Oklahoma? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moon. Is there a provision in that bill by which you will be 
enabled, after you erect the Territory into a State, to detatch portions 
of Indian Territory and attach it, with the consent of Congress, to 
your State '^ 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir; but I will tell you 

Mr. Moon. Why do you w^ant that? That is what I want to get at; 
what is the purpose of that? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yer}^ well, I will tell you what my purpose was, Mr. 
Moon. 

The original bill introduced in Congress, which passed this commit- 
tee and passed the House of Representatives, has that identical provi- 
sion, and I was led to believe that this was necessar}^ in order to meet 
the approval and secure the vote of certain persons, or a number of 
persons, in the House of Representatives who entertained the idea 
that some measure of this kind ought to be introduced. So far as I 
am personally concerned, I do not believe that the Indian Territory 
can possibly be made ready for statehood without a very great burden 
upon their people for ten, twelve, or maybe fifteen or twenty years. 
If ever}" possible incentive was ofiered by the Government to these 
people to dispose of the land, and all present barriers in the way of its 
alienation removed, it is possible that they might be ready in five 
years, or six years, or twelve years, or something of that kind. 

Mr. Moon. What I want to get at is this: If all of them are not 
ready and not fit for statehood, is that part that you provide for detach- 
ing and adding to your State any more ready than the balance of the 
Territory ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes; more nearly ready than any other. 

Mr. Moon. That is, you think the Creeks are more nearly fitted for 
citizenship in Oklahoma than the balance of them? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, not in point of intelligence; they are just as 
ready in the matter of intelligence, but that is not the point 

Mr. Mo3N. That is not a matter of political expediency, but for the 
benefit of the people that you want that done? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I have tried, so far as I am concerned, to avoid pol- 
itics in this matter. I come to this committee purely on equitable 
grounds, not on political grounds. 

Mr. Moon. Would you be willing to have that provision taken out? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Certainly. If we could do that and have any security 
for statehood I would gladly have it stricken out. I want to say this 



248 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

to the committee, that the position I take is not a political position. 
The position I take is one of equity. I know the conditions in the 
Indian Territory. I am familiar with the conditions in Oklahoma. I 
know what the people are enduring who are now located on Indian 
allotments in my own count}^ and within a few miles of m}^ own home, 
and I have had opportunity to observe those conditions for ten years, 
and 1 know the experience the people of my country had at the time 
they did not have any real estate to tax, and 1 know of the debts sad- 
dled upon the various counties of Oklahoma and wh}^ that debt is 
there. And it is this condition of things and this state of facts that 
cause me to protest at this time against the incoming of the Indian 
Territory, which would simply be a repetition of everj^^thing we have 
had in Oklahoma, except it would be in a magnified form. 

I say these bills do not give relief. Now, then, partly answering 
further the interrogatory propounded b}^ Mr. Moon, I want to say 
this: That if it had not been that I had heard the expression from 
certain members of this committee that they were opposed to the piece- 
meal form of bringing in the Indian Territory (and that expression 
came from members who have shown a commendable vigilance so far 
as posting themselves upon conditions down there is concerned), and 
other persons who have heretofore stood as the warm supporters of 
my Territory for statehood, I would have still advocated the piecemeal 
form, because I believe it the best plan. But it gives some an oppor- 
tunity to stand up and sa}^ that it is for political purposes, and I will 
tell you, gentlemen, why I think that this argument suggests itself. 

The Creek Nation lies adjacent to Oklahoma, So far as real estate 
conditions are concerned it is more nearly ready for statehood at this 
time than any other section of the country. Oklahoma has attained 
her present proportions by the piecemeal method. Originally there 
were about six counties in Oklahoma. The Sac and Fox country was 
added; that is a part of eastern Oklahoma. The Chej^enne country 
was later added; that is in western Oklahoma. Subsequently the great 
Cherokee Strip was added, comprising almost one-half of Oklahoma. 
During all this time nothing was heard about the piecemeal method. 
People residing in those districts did not complain. They were being 
absorbed and attached, and were being prepared for statehood. And, 
last, the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache countries, comprising three 
large counties of Oklahoma, were added. And that is the way Okla- 
homa has reached her present proportions, having taken these Indian 
reservations from time to time. They have done the natural thing — 
that is, treated with the Indians and opened this country. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize, however, that there may be a 
difi'erence in that respect between a State government and a Territorial 
form of government in the accretion of territory? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I do not know whether I understand j^our question. 

The Chairman. Would j^ou not recognize that there might be a dif- 
ference between a State government and a Territorial form of govern- 
ment as to this gradual accretion, so to speak, of territory 'i 

Mr. McGuiRE. Well, it does not make any difference, Mr. Chair- 
man, at least in this particular. You take the Indian Territory as it is 
at this time and they can better afford a Territorial government than 
a State government, although it would impose the burden of taxation. 

Mr. Thayer. Why soi 

Mr. McGuiRE. Because it is universally considered, Mr. Thayer, 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 249 

that the Federal Government paj^s certain of the running expenses of 
the Territorial government and does not pay any running expenses of 
a State government, and one of the arguments advanced against imme- 
diate statehood for Oklahoma, when we talk about waiting for the 
Indian Territor}^, is ''You are doing well; the Government is paying 
your legislature, the Government is paying your Territorial officers, 
the Government is prosecuting criminals on Indian reservations." 
That is one of the arguments advanced. Simph^ that it is an economic 
measure. 

You take the Indian Territor3\ If 3"ou give them a Territorial form 
of government, 3^ou increase the burden of every taxpayer in that 
countr}^; you do not organize a single school district in the rural dis- 
tricts. Oklahoma has built hundreds of schoolhouses, and I do not 
know, gentlemen, of a single instance at this time where a schoolhouse 
has been built in that countr}^ except by the issuance of bonds. You 
gentlemen living in older States possibly can not appreciate that propo- 
sition, but in ever}^ single instance in my county, I think, where a 
schoolhouse has been built it has been built because bonds were issued. 
There has not been a single schoolhouse erected on Indian allotments 
or where large bodies of land were taken for Indian allotments in my 
county, or any other county in Oklahoma. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do you intend to convey the idea that if you have a 
State you would not bond your districts for schoolhouses, or that the 
States themselves in building schoolhouses do not bond the district? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I mean to say this, Mr. Lloyd: You take the older 
States and there are various wa3's, of course, of building a schoolhouse. 
The3'^ can inaugurate a sinking fund, or something of that kind, and 
build a schoolhouse without bonding. I was familiar with some dis- 
tricts in the State of Kansas where the building was constructed and 
never a bond issued, because they were old districts and the3^ provided 
a sinking fund and allowed that fund to stand for years, and the3^ ulti- 
matety had mone3^ enough to erect their schoolhouses. But in Okla- 
homa schoolhouses are not built without issuing bonds. That has 
been done all over the countr3^ and everv count3^ in the Territor3% and 
is always done shorth^ after the countr3^ is opened for settlement or 
as soon as the land is deeded. What I mean by that is as soon as the 
homesteader receives his patent in fee and the real estate gets in that 
condition that 3^ou can sell the bonds. 

Now, as to the piecemeal method, if it were not for the political idea 
of this matter, in m3^ honest judgment, the proper, natural, and 
legitimate conclusion to deduct from the chaotic conditions in 
Indian Territor3^ would be to sav let the Creek Nation be attached to 
Oklahoma as soon as one-half of the real estate is taxable. Let the 
Cherokee Nation be attached to Oklahoma and become a part of Okla- 
homa as soon as one-half of the real estate of that country is taxable, 
and the3^ ought not to come before at least one-half of their real estate 
is taxable. Aside from the political condition of things in that coun- 
try, that would be the logical and philosophical and reasonable thing 
to do, just as Oklahoma has absorbed these other countries. 

Mr. Lloyd. But, Mr. McGuire, is it not true under the provisions 
of your bill that the next session of Congress after the passage of an 
enabling act would have the power to add the whole Indian Territor3^ 
if it desired ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir. I put in that provision, Mr. Llo3^d, with 



250 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

the view of leaving as much as possible to the wisdom of Congress and 
let Congress meet the conditions when it got to them. If it found it 
best to attach the Creek Nation, let it come; if it found it best to extend 
the lines around the entire Indian Territoiy , let it come; but I am now 
discussing the impracticability of letting those people come with Okla- 
homa at this time or of even giving them a Territorial form of govern- 
ment, however much I should like to see it done. 

I want to be understood, gentlemen, like this. I am no less anxious, 
perhaps, than those who are now residing in Indian Territor}^ that 
they have some relief. I have many acquaintances in that country. 
They have the intelligence and they have the strength numericall}^ to 
form a State either with Oklahoma or b}^ themselves, for that matter; 
but those white people have gone down there into the rural districts 
and accepted a condition. That has been Indian country, is Indian 
country to-day; the real estate is owned b}^ the Indians. No man 
could go there without foreseeing the one fact that it was going to 
take 3^ears to unraA^el the unfortunate condition existing tiiere at this 
time. Anj^one could see that and anyone can see that at this time. 

The Chairman. Speaking of the Creek Nation, can you estimate 
about when one-half of the real estate of the Creek Nation will be tax- 
able? You spoke of the jointure of the Creek Nation to Oklahoma, 
when one-half of the real estate should be taxable. 

Mr. Spalding. Mr. Bixb}^ stated that this morning. 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, if you will pardon me, he did not state when 
it would be taxable, but when it would be alienable. I wish the com- 
mittee would get the distinction between the time when this land is 
alienable and when it is likely to become taxable. 

Mr. Moon. Right there, Mr. McGuire, if you will pardon me. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moon. Suppose Congress were to conclude that it were a wise 
thing to unite your Territory and the Indian Territory and make one 
State and place no restriction on the new State on the question of 
taxation. Then the new State would have a sovereignty and could tax 
everything in your Territory regardless of an 3^ agreements or treaties 
with the Indians, could they not, for school purposes or any other 
purpose ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. If there were no restriction on this taxation of real 
estate ? 

Mr. Moon. By Congress; yes. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I think that is true. 

Mr. Moon. Then you would be left alone to handle j^our own sov- 
ereign t}- according to the will of the majority of the people; you 
would have free government of 3- our own? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes. 

Mr. Moon. Is not that the best thing for you to do ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. That will never be done, in my judgment, for this 
reason: Wherever the Government has treated with a tribe of Indians 
in Oklahoma there has been a specific provision that real estate 
should not be. taxed, and the very best land in my county to-day is not 
taxed because it belongs to the Indians, and the very best land in 
about seven counties in Oklahoma to-day is not taxed because it is 
owned by Indians. That has always been the policy of the Govern- 
ment, and, in my judgment, will continue to be the policy of the Gov- 
ernment as applied to conditions in the Indian Territory. 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 251 

Mr. MooN. Did Congress put any limit upon that question of tax- 
ation i 

Mr. McGuiRE. Nothing was said, in my recollection, so far as the 
Pawnee Tribe of Indians is concerned, and that is the tribe which is 
in my immediate country, except this: That they could not dispose of 
it for twenty-five years within the time of the allotment. 

Mr. Moox. And when is that out i 

Mr. McGuiRE. Thirteen years from this time. So you see the con- 
ditions in my country. Now, whether that means, Mr. Moon, that 
the State of Oklahoma could tax those Indians after that time is a 
question upon which 1 have not informed nwself . 

Mr. Moox. That is a question of law stricth'. 

Mr. McGuiKE. But I am simply taking the conditions as they exist 
in Indian Territory and say — and I do not hesitate to make the state- 
ment — that Congress is not going to tax those Indians. They are 
going to be given the land. Most of that land is valuable, and most of 
those men are men of good business judgment. 

Mr. Moox. But if they come into a State b}^ act of Congress, with- 
out limitation. Congress has no further power over them. 

Mr. McGuiRE. But I sa}^ that, in my judgment. Congress will never 
permit that 

Mr. Moox. Suppose the limit, according to 3^our idea- 



Mr. McGuiRE (continuing). Until the Indian is protected. 

Mr. Moox (continuing). Would be a hundred years; you could 
not make a State in there. Do you think that is a correct proposition ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I do not know whether I get 3'our idea. 

Mr. Moox. Congress has made no limitation, or if it does make a 
limitation of fifty or a hundred years, and then, in its wisdom, sees fit 
to make a State without am- reservation on that question at all. the 
new sovereign tv would have the power of taxation. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes. 

Mr. Moox. And if that were not true, then the fact that Congress 
might heretofore have made such an arrangement would prohibit u& 
forever from admitting that as a State. 

Mr. McGuiRE. But it seems to me we ought to discuss probabilities- 
and not possibilities. Taking the history of Congress in the past in 
dealing with Indian tribes both in Oklahoma and in the Indian Terri- 
tory^, we have everv reason to believe, judging by what has been done^ 
that Congress is not going to allow those Indians to be taxed. 

Mr. Moox. Do you not think it would be better for them to give 
them statehood and let them be taxed ( 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, sir. 

Mr. Moox. That is really the question anyway ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, sir: no universally. Speaking as one familiar 
with the Indians and their customs, I will make this statement in 
answer to your question: At present whenever the full-blood Indian 
has taxes assessed against him he almost invariably allows a warrant 
to issue to the sherifl'. He knows nothing about paying taxes. They 
go and levy on his property and collect it, and it is always done at a 
great cost to the Indian, simply because the Indian has absolutely no 
business judgment. 

Mr. Moox. Well, now, what per cent of the people of the Territory 
are in that condition i 

Mr. McGuiRE. I was going to get to that in a minute. That is the 



252 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

fact with the full-blood Indians in my countr}". The full-blood Indian 
is alike wherever \^ou find him; he has no business judgment. There 
comes another class, largel}^ predominating in the Indian Territory", 
and, I might sa}-, predominating in Oklahoma. That is the class of 
Indian who could pay taxes and would pay his taxes if there is that 
imposition by the Federal or State government; but that kind of 
Indian is the very fellow who is going to be here to protect to the last 
extremit}^ ever}^ member of his tribe and his race and is going to pro- 
test to the last ditch against the Federal Government and against the 
State government levying a tax upon real estate, and they will come 
here and sa}^, "It has always been the policy of the Government not to 
tax that land; are you going to take that extraordinary measure with 
us at this time?" I say in my honest judgment the Government never 
will tax those Indian allotments, at least until they get their land in fee. 

Mr. McNeil. In the State of Kansas that question was fairly and 
squarelv presented about the right of a State to tax Indian lands, and 
the supreme court of the State said they had no authority to tax 
Indian land. 

Mr. Moon. That depends on the terms altogether. 

Mr. Robinson. Are you not making a false assumption as to the 
policy of Congress and as to the strength of precedent in their action, 
and is it not true by reason of the changed conditions of the Indians 
and reformed and enlightened dealings with them by Congress, and its 
having given them American citizenship, that the Indians themselves, 
or at least those that are enlightened and intelligent, would prefer to 
have the advantages of a State governmicnt notwithstanding that 
Congress would impose the burden of taxation for a State government; 
and that that, under the reformed and enlighteded system of Congress 
pursued now for some years, will be the new system of policy in deal- 
ing with the Indian tribes in question? 

Mr. McGuiEE. I think, Mr. Robinson, the thought suggested by 
yourself would be the false assumption. If that policy is going to 
change we have no evidence of it; if the policy with reference to the 
Indian is going to be reversed we have not up to this date had the 
slightest intimation of it. Any legislation of this kind or character 
would be met with a vigorous protest, in my judgment, from the 
Interior Department and from the Indians in Oklahoma and the 
Indians in the Indian Territor}^; and in the face of that condition of 
affairs I do not believe the Government would reverse and turn back 
from the policy heretofore established. 

Mr. Robinson. Do 3^ou think that this condition of wardship and 
tutelage will be recognized as being the sound policy to be continued 
by the United States Government, notwithstanding the degree of 
intelligence the Indians have acquired, their acquirement of American 
citizenship, and the giving to them of the right of State government? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I do, for this reason: That same degree of intelli- 
gence has pervaded ever}^ Indian tribe for fift\^ or one hundred years. 
You can go back fifty years and you will find that the Indian was 
intelligent, that the half-breeds and quarter-breeds among them at 
that time were intelligent, and there were what you might call white 
men among them who had the same intelligence there is among them 
to-day; but when it comes to legislating for the Indians the man who is 
the full-blood or blanket Indian is the man that creates the impression 
with Congress and with the Interior Department and this Govern- 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 253 

ment, and it is for him that we have legislated, and we have never 
distinguished between him and the half-breed Indians. 

Mr. Robinson. But we have destro3"ed the tribal relations; and I 
will ask you what your judgment is as to legislating so that the full 
blood may be protected and at the same time give the enlightened 
Indians opportunity^ to pa}^ their share of taxation? 

Mr. McGrUiRE. I can only answer that the like has never been done, 
and it would hardly be equitable to distinguish between the two, and 
I do not believe the Federal Government will ever do it, and if we 
have to wait for statehood for Oklahoma until the Federal Govern- 
ment does do that I think we will stay there as the Territory of Okla- 
homa for twent3^-five years. 

Mr. Robinson. This is about the only example that the Govern- 
ment has had of the condition that exists in Indian Territory. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Here is m}^ country. Part of it has been opened for 
•fifteen years, and no one, so far I know^, has ever thought of taxing 
any Indian upon his real estate. The question has never been sprung, 
and I dare say if it were sprung in Oklahoma to-day ever}'^ tribe of 
Indians, every man of ever}^ tribe, would protest to the last extremit}^ 
against such a measure. 

Mr. Robinson. Have they not with equal vigilance been protesting 
against the denial of a right to alienate their property, and are they 
not so protesting now ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, sir; and I speak as one who knows. I have had 
an opportunity to know because I have lived adjacent to various Indian 
tribes for twent3^-three years. 

Mr. Robinson. Have they not been complaining to the Secretary of 
the Interior, and was not what you read this morning a very small pro- 
portion of the complaints made because they have not the power of 
alienating their lands ^ 

Mr. McGuiRE, No, sir; occasionally there is an isolated case where 
an Indian wants to sell his land; but in my county, at this time, there 
are thousands of Indians who have an opportunity to sell, but will not 
sell. It is only the reckless Indian who needs assistance, who needs 
guardianship, w^ho needs attention from the Interior Department; he 
sells his land. 

Mr. Moon. As a matter of information, I would like to ask this: In 
your bill for Statehood do you make provision that the new State shall 
not tax the Indians that are in Oklahoma? 

Mr. Robinson. No, sir; I leave it to the Federal Government. 

Mr. Moon. Then you propose to exercise in jouv new State the same 
sovereign rights in regard to those Indians that you think ought not 
to be exercised in reference to the Indians in Indian Territory? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Leave every Indian tribe to be controlled abso- 
lutelv by the Federal Government. 

Mr. Moon. Is that in your bill? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I am not prepared to say as to that; I do not remem- 
ber whether I embodied that or not. 

Mr. Moon. You have not cared for that question in 3^our bill ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I can not say whether I have or not. 

Mr. Moon. Now, as a matter of information on the Territory — I do 
not know whether I am correct or not and am asking 3^ou for 3- our 
knowledge— in the Indian Territor3^ there are probabty very few unedu- 
cated Indians, the lower class of Indians, if you might so term them, 



254 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

and as compared to the better-educated classes and the white people 
that class is about in the proportion of 60,000 to 600,000, is it not? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I did not get the correct import, perhaps, of your 
question. 

Mr. Moon. Well, I am informed that there are about 600,000 peo- 
ple in the Indian Territory that your objections to, on the ground of 
taxation, would not apph^ and about forty or fift}^ thousand, possibly, 
that it would apply to. How is that? 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is not correct; no. 

Mr. Moon. I wanted to give you an opportunity to give us infor- 
mation on that question. 

Mr. McGuiRE. The}" own all the real estate in Indian Territory. 

Mr. Lloyd. Except the towns. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Except the towns; and my suggestion would appl}" 
universally to the Indian Territory, because all that real estate belongs 
to the Iidians, and they are exempt from taxation. 

Mr. Moon. What kind of Indian are 3"ou speaking of, the blanket 
Indian, or the half-breed, or what? 

Mr. McGuiRE. All persons classed as Indians. By that I mean full 
bloods, half-breeds, quarter breeds, or any persons who are on the 
rolls. 

Mr. Moon. What is the proportion of full bloods as compared with 
the others? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I think, perhaps, you were not here this forenoon, 
and I tried brief! v to make this point that I now degire to call 3^our 
attention to because of the interrogatory you. have propounded. 
There is a large per cent of these people in the Indian Territor}^ classed 
as Indians who are persons of average intelligence at least, men who 
transact their own business and know how to transact business. They 
are getting this real estate because they are on the roll as Indians just 
as the full-blood Indian is getting his land. When that land is allotted 
to him it is one of the veiy best investments he could make at this 
time, standing there as it does withoat taxation, without expense to 
himself, with the land continuall}^, all over that countiy, enhancing in 
value and with the certainty that it will continue to advance in value 
perhaps for j^ears to come. That educated Indian, or white man, you 
might call him, if he has but little Indian blood, is going to preserve 
that investment in all probability, and even though the Government 
may say "You may sell your land, you have an opportunit}^ to alien- 
ate,'' the question is. How are 3"ou going to induce him to alienate that 
land? So it resolved itself, not into the proposition of when he is 
going to have a chance to alienate, but when is he going to, in fact, 
dispose of it. 

Mr. Moon. I was not on the question of alienation; m}^ question was 
on the question of the right of the government — the new State — to tax. 
Now, if 600,000 people there are fit for citizenship and 40,000 ought to 
be protected, according to your idea, as not fit for citizenship, would 
it be a wise thing for the Government to establish a State there and 
let the State deal with those things and dispose of those questions 
themselves ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I would be very glad to see that done, but in m}" 
judgment it will never be done, for this reason 

Mr. Moon. It will never be unless we do it, and that is what we are 
considering. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 255 

Mr. McGuiRE. But there stands the Senate of the United States, 
and the Indian protective associations, and the Indian tribes, who 
have alwavs figured largely in legislation of this kind, and I say it 
would be a radical departure from present conditions, and one we can 
not reasonabW expect from the Government; and I say now, if we 
have to wait until that time comes, then Oklahoma will be waiting 
twent3-five 3^ears for statehood. 

Mr. Spalding. There are treat}^ obligations in the wa}^ ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir; and the Government does not arbitrarily 
railroad those people into anything. 

Mr. Lloyd. But is it not a mistaken assumption in Mr. Moon's 
question that the 40,000 or 50,000 to whom he refers are not intelligent 
people. You do not sa}^ they lack intelligence? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No; I did not. 

Mr. Moon. I was assuming' that his position was that that many 
people ought to be cared for as wards, that the}^ had not sufficient 
intelligence to care for themselves. 

Mr. Spalding. As I understand it, it is not a question of the 
Indians, but a question of the real estate. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes; the real estate is owned by the Indians. 

Mr. Lloyd. But j^ou do not say the 40,000 or 50,000 who are 
there 

Mr. McGuiRE. About 80,000. 

Mr. Lloyd. You do not say the}^ are not intelligent? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I say as a rule they are intelligent. Probably 75 
per cent of them are persons of fair intelligence. 

Mr. Moon. The point I was making was this: As to whether it was 
wise or not to preclude from the rights of citizenship 600,000 people 
because there happened to be there 40,000 or 50,000 people that you 
think need the protection of the Government, that the Government 
ought to look after as its wards. 

Mr. McGuiRE. It is like this: Whenever you go to legislate for 
those people the United States Senate stands in the way, and probably 
the House of Representatives; you are going to ])e confronted with 
this condition of affairs; protests will come from the Indian protective 
associations, protests will come from Indian tribes saying that those 
people are intruders. Those protests will sa}^ ''Those people came 
here and accepted the conditions as they found them." 

There is no question about the Indian being in the minority. But 
they will say, " We are here because we have a right to be here; we 
have a right to be here by reason of the treaties with the Federal Gov- 
ernment. It has been said we shall have these lands. These parties 
have come in and located on them, and while the}^ may exceed us in 
numbers they have not the equity; the equity is with the Indian 
tribe.*' And that equity is going to be protected, in my judgment, 
not onh^ by the House of Kepresentatives, but by the Senate of the 
United States. 

Mr. Moon. I wanted to get the force of 3"our position in connection 
with the bill 3^ou introduced. I understood 3^ou then to mean this: 
That you want separate statehood for Oklahoma, and do not want any 
part of Indian Territory attached to 3^ou ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I can not sa}^ we want to go that far. 

Mr. Moon. Why should you, if the conditions in the Indian Terri- 
toiy are as they are, wh}- should 3^ou desire to piecemeal that countr3" 



256 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

rather than to leave it in block as it stands, hereafter to be organized 
in a Territor}^ or State ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I no not desire that that be done, but my argument 
was along the line that it was the only feasible thing to do unless you 
throw the lines around there and saj" '' Come as unorganized territory, 
just as the Osage country is with Oklahoma, until one-half or one- 
third of your land is taxable and until you can creditably support 
local government." 

Mr. Moon. Do you not think it would be better, from your own 
standpoint, from the logic of 3^our position, to make a State of Okla- 
homa alone and not attach any part of the Indian Territory, but leave ^ 
that Territory as it is now and organize it, if necessary, into a Terri- 
tory to prepare it for statehood hereafter? 

Mr. McGuiRE. That would be m}^ idea, Mr. Moon. 

Mr. Moon. You do not want to encumber those people with a pro- 
vision in your bill that will threaten their integrity all the time? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, indeed. 

Mr. Moon. Then I understand you stand alone for Oklahoma state- 
hood, with no part of the Indian Territory attached as the best policy? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I should be pleased, indeed, to have that done if it is 
practicable — if the American Congress would accept that condition; but 
this other is simply an extraordinary measure to try to meet the ideas 
of an}^ person who may be opposed to statehood for Oklahoma. We 
are trying to get something through, and we are trying to get some- 
thing through without unloading an unbearable burden on Oklahoma, 
and at the same time doing nothing to burden the people of the Indian 
Territory. 

Mr. Thayer. I do not know that I fully comprehend your situation 
here as I have been listening to it. I understood you to say that you 
were not in favor of Territorial government for Indian Territory, and 
if it was established there they would not have schools? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I did. 

Mr. Thayer. Now, assuming that the Government will maintain 
its portion of any taxing of Indian lands — as I think you are right in 
assuming they will not — 3^ou say in Oklahoma you have established 
your schools by bonding the different districts for building school- 
houses ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thayer. Now, assuming that the land is going to remain 
untaxed that belongs to the Indians, and a great majority belongs to 
them now, as I understand it, in Indian Territory; am I right? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes; practically all of it. 

Mr. Thayer. A great majority of it, but the towns do not? 

Mr. McGuiRE. All but the towns. 

Mr. Thayer. Now, what is your objection if the Congress of the 
United States saw fit to give Indian Territory a Territorial form of 
government under the conditions which I have stated? You say you 
are opposed to it; why are 3^ou opposed to it? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I will not say that I am opposed to it. 

Mr. Thayer. I understood that is what you said, that is what rather 
startled me. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I perhaps made that statement, but I did not mean 
to go that far. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 257 

Mr. Thayer. I think you said that half an hour ago. I intended 
to ask you about it. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I intend to go this far: While it would be nice for 
those people to have a Territorial form of government, my judgment 
is that it would be hardship upon the taxpayers of that country. 

Mr. Thayer. That is, the white men in the towns? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Upon all persons who are taxed, the white men in 
the towns and the men who are on the allotments who have personal 
property, because, judging by what was done in Oklahoma, that would 
plunge every county in that Territor}^ in debt the very day of the 
organization of the government. 

Mr. Thayer. If they pay their proportionate share of taxation joined 
with Oklahoma, will they not have to pay as much as if they were sep- 
arate as a Territory ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I think about as much. 

Mr. Thayer. Then the taxation would not be any more detrimental 
to that people with a Territorial form of government than it would 
uniting with Oklahoma in a State form of government? 

Mr. McGuiRE. It would not, but each would mean a burden, either 
way 3^ou take it, and if they come in with Oklahoma it not only means 
a burden for the people in Indian Territory, but it also means a bur- 
den for the people in Oklahoma. The condition is, Mr. Thayer 

Mr. Thayer. Then there is no additional burden on the people of 
Oklahoma if we do not join them? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No. 

M.r. Thayer. Then why do not w^e come to the conclusion that it is 
better for them, if the taxation is going to be the same, that they 
should be left with a Territorial form of government? 

Mr. McGuiRE. If they do not come in with Oklahoma and you 
should give them a Territorial form of government you do increase the 
burden, because any man pays for government. 

Mr. Thayer. Well, a man that buys a washdish and washes his 
face in it rather than out of the brook is willinp' to have an additional 
expense attending it. 

Mr. McGuiRE. But here it is all right to organize them into a gov- 
ernment if you do not increase the burden to the point that they can 
not bear it. In Indian Territory the}^ have not the taxable real estate. 

Mr. Thayer. But from the testimony I have heard here those peo- 
ple are not only willing to take that burden, but want to take it, and 
thev want to be joined with you, and they come here, I think, numer- 
icailv, two to one wdth that request. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I think that is true 

Mr. Thayer. Then we must conclude that they are willing to take 
some burden of taxation on themselves, wdiether we think it is for their 
good to remain by themselves or not. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I think, unquestionabl}', from the expressions we 
have heard here, the people of Indian Territor}^ are willing to take 
on the burden of Territorial organization and local government, either 
with or without Oklahoma; but speaking as one who has watched 
Oklahoma's development, and knowing the experience of eveiy county 
in Oklahoma when they did not have any real estate, I do not hesitate 
to say that the people of Indian Territory are assuming a burden the 
proportions of which the}^ do not realize. 

OKLA 17 



258 gTATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. Thayer. Do 3^ou think the committee ought to assume that 
position, that if they come here and sa}^ that they are willing to pa}^ 
for the thing, that we ought to say that we will not do it? 

Mr. McGuiRE. As long as it is no imposition upon anybod}^ else we 
ought to let them have it; but 1 sa}^ it will be a burden for those peo- 
ple and hundreds of them do not realize what they are asking for or 
what it would mean. Thej think they are getting schoolhouses and 
school districts, and they can not get them. 

Mr. Thayer. Why not? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Because they can not sell a bond and the}^ can not 
build a schoolhouse. 

Mr. Thayer. Why can they not, if admitted to Territorial rights; 
why can't the}^ do it as well as you do it on the other side of the line? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I will tell you. We have been up against the same 
objections in a minimized form in Oklahoma. Take the indemnit}^ 
lands that we have in Oklahoma to-day, and there is not a school dis- 
trict where they have a schoolhouse, and the people in those counties 
are saying now "Give us some sort of relief." They can not vote a 
bond; they can not support a school. That is the condition in my 
Territory where we have Indian allotments, and that condition prevails 
throughout the Indian Territor3^ I sav that they do not get the relief 
intended; that the Quay bill or the Robinson bill would not give the 
relief intended for those people. 

Mr. Moon. You do not mean to say that the State would not have 
the power, under its constitution, to levy a tax for school purposes, if 
it saw fit, regardless of county lines ? 

Mr. Spaeuing. But if Indian Territorv and Oklahoma were ad- 
mitted together that tax would be paid by Oklahoma. 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is it, exactly. 

Mr. Moon. Oh, no. In the towns in Indian Territory, now, they 
are maintaining schools, and good ones, too, and if the new State were 
formed of the two Territories — and I will say now, that I would prefer 
it not to be done that way — but, if they were formed together, your 
legislature would have the power, under your constitution, to lev}' a 
tax for school purposes and apportion it as equitably as the}' could and 
in such way as they saw fit. 

Mr. McGuiRE. No 

Mr. Wilson. Suppose the title was not in them; suppose the title 
was still in the Government? 

Mr. McGuiRE. So far as the real estate is concerned, yes; and, Mr. 
Moon, we have a legislature now in Oklahoma 

Mr. Moon. That goes back to the question I asked you a while ago. 
I do not care where the title is, if it is within the boundaries of a sov- 
ereign State, and Congress itself, in creating the State, does not lay 
the inhibition, the power is reserved to the people of the Territory, I 
think. 

Mr. McGuiRE. But there is going to be an inhibition so far as the 
real estate is concerned, I think; and my judgment is that there is 
going to be an inhibition so far as the people of Indian Territory are 
concerned — that is, with the Indians and their real estate. 

Mr. RoDEY. There are very few Indians using that land themselves. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes. 

Mr. KoDEY. These leases are taxable, are they not? 



I 

1 

L 



STATEHOOD FOK OKLAHOMA. 259 

Mr. McGuiRE. No; the}^ might be taxable under some sort of tribal 
law in the Indian Territor}'. 

Mr. RoDET. I mean these lessees are principally white men? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes. 

Mr. RoDEY. If I had a valuable lease on a piece of property I know 
very few States in which that is not taxable. I have to render that as 
part of ni}' property, subject to taxation. 

Mr. McGuiRE. But I can not conceive, when you talk about taxing 
a leasehold — I can not conceive how you are going to get much tax out 
of that. It is only valuable so far as conditions may make it valuable. 
You have a lease, and the mere lease of itself may be of little value. 

Mr. RoDEY. Or it may be of a good deal of value. It ma3^ be worth 
the price of the land. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I can not conceive of how }■ ou are going to tax the 
leasehold without minimizing the value of the lease, and they are going 
to make those leases worth as much to the Indian as possible, and if 
you are going to tax them the first thing a man will say when he pro- 
poses to lease that land will be, "How much tax is there on this lease- 
hold ?" and there will be a protest against that. I do not see that much 
tax could be gotten from that. 

Mr. Moon. Your Territor}^ now taxes all personal property and all 
leaseholds in the Indian part of the countiy ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Just personal propert}^, as I understand it. 

Mr. Moon. And leaseholds, too? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No; I think not. 

Mr. Moon. I understand they do. 

Mr. McGuiRE. No; I think not. We tax real estate and personal 
property, and that is all we tax. 

Mr. Moon. A lease is personalty subject to taxation if there is no 
limitation on it. 

Mr. McGuiRE. But leases are not taxable in my Territor}". 

Mr. Robinson. Mr. Bixb}^ is here, and he is a thorough expert on 
the subject, and I would like to know how many blanket Indians there 
are in the Indian Territory first, and, next, how man}" full-blood 
Indians, who probabh^ more need the wardship of the Government 
than the others, if 3^ou can give that? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I can only give a^ou what the census gives. The 
population of Oklahoma, of white population, in 1900 was 367,524; 
negro, 18,831; Indians, 11,915. That includes all. 

The Chairman. What is the total ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Three hundred and ninety-eight thousand three hun- 
dred and thirty-one. 

Mr. Robinson. That is Oklahoma? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes; in Indian Territor}^ the Avhite population is 
302,680; negro, 36,853; the Indian population there is 52,500; Chi- 
nese, 27. 

Mr. Robinson. But who are classed as Indians? Mr. Bixby is here 
now, and he can give us the number of blanket Indians in the Terri- 
tory and the number of full bloods. 

Mr. McGuiRE. As to those blanket Indians, I want to make a sug- 
gestion. Some one seems to have the idea that a blanket Indian is a 
full -blood Indian, and that all others are mixed bloods. That is not 
true. There are hundreds of full-blood Indians who do not wear 



260 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

blankets, and there are hundreds of Indians who have some white 
blood in them who do wear blankets. 

Mr. KoBiNSON. But that would not prevent Mr. Bixby from giving 
us those figures. 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is true, but some one talked about there being- 
more blanket Indians in Oklahoma than in Indian Territory. That is 
perhaps true, because those wild tribes were sent down there — that is, 
after the Indian Territory was populated by Indians — and it is their 
custom to wear blankets, while there are hundreds of full-blood Indians 
in the Indian Territory who do not wear blankets. 

Mr. Robinson. Can j^ou give us, with the assistance of Mr. Bixby, 
the number of blanket Indians in the Indian Territory and the num- 
ber of full bloods in the Indian Territory 'i 

Mr. M^GuiRE. The number of blanket Indians and the number of 
full bloods? 

Mr. EoBiNSON. Yes; separatel}^ 

Mr. McGuiRE. You do not mean to convey the idea that only the 
blanket Indians are full bloods? 

Mr. Robinson. No; that is the reason I separate them in asking for 
the information through Mr. Bixb}^? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I do not know, but I should judge in Oklahoma 
there would be 3,000 blanket Indian^, perhaps; that is simply my judg- 
ment as one who has been attending the Federal courts where these 
Indian tribes were for ten 3^ears, and knowing something of the con- 
ditions of these tribes; I should think there were 3,000 blanket Indians 
in Oklahoma. As to the Indian Territoiy, my experience is that for a 
number of years I have seen but very few blanket Indians, but I have 
seen a great many full-blood Indians. 

Mr. Robinson. With the assistance of Mr. Bixby, can you give us 
the number of full-blood Indians ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I do not think my knowledge is sufficient. 

Mr. Bixby. Seventeen thousand and some. 

Mr. Robinson. Full bloods ? 

Mr. Bixby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Blanket Indians? 

Mr. Bixby. No, sir; there are no blanket Indians that I know of 
there; at least no blanket Indians in the sense w^e talk of blanket 
Indians in the far West. 

Mr. McGuiRE. But thev are full bloods? 

Mr. Bixby. Yes; 17,000 odd full bloods. 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is almost twice as many as we have in Okla- 
homa, and 1 desire to call your attention to the fact at this time that 
the statement has been made from time to time before this committee 
that there are more full bloods in Oklahoma than in Indian Territory. 

The Chairman. How many blanket Indians did you say there are 
in Oklahoma? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Three thousand blanket Indians. 

The Chairman. How many Indians are there in Indian Territory? 

Mr. Bixby. About 50,000.'^ That includes all Indians who are mem- 
bers of the tribes. I am speaking of the members of the tribes. Of 
course there are some Indians that do not belong to the tribes. 

Mr. Lloyd. Are 3"ou not mistaken in saying that witnesses here 
have said that there are more full- blood Indians in Oklahoma than in 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 261 

Indian Territory ? I think what they said was that there were more 
blanket Indians in Oklahoma. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Very well; I will stand corrected, then. 

Mr. BiXBY. I want to be understood correctly as to my reply to the 
question just asked me. There are about 50,000 Indians in Indian 
Territory; that is, people of Indian blood. There are over 80,000 mem- 
bers of the tribes. About 25,000 of these are negroes; and then there 
are 6,000 or 7,000 white men and women. 

The Chairman. W hat do you say the present population of Indian 
Territory is, Mr. Bixby? 

Mr. BixBY. I have no means of knowing exactly, but just as a guess, 
I should think pretty close to 700,000. 

The Chairman. And what does the census give? 

Mr. BixBY. A little less than 400,000. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Three hundred and ninety-two thousand. 

The Chairman. It is gaining pretty rapidly? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes. 

The Chairman. What kind of people are those that make up this 
gain? 

Mr. BiXBY. White people; very few negroes are coming in. 

The Chairman. Are they coming from all parts of the country? 

Mr. BixBY. Mostly from Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, and 
Iowa, but to a limited extent from all parts of the North. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I would ask you whether there has been an}^ census 
taken since 1900? 

Mr. BiXBY. No; not that I know of. 

The Chairman. On what do you base j^our present estimate of the 
population ? 

Mr. BixBY. Observation. 

The Chairman. What have been your opportunities for observation ? 

Mr. BixBY. I travel veiy extensively up and down the Territory 
and visit the biggest towns, and I have noticed that the towns are 
growing very fast. 

The Chairman. And what is 3^our official position? 

Mr. BixBY. I am chairman of the Dawes Commission, the Commis- 
sion to the Five Civilized Tribes. 

Mr. McGuiRE. In this connection I desire to make a few observa- 
tions in reference to the population of Oklahoma and Indian Territory. 
Mr. Bixby has stated that he has no means of telling what number of 
people they have in the Indian Territory except it is purely a matter 
of judgment obtained from his knowledge of conditions in the various 
communities of the Indian Territor3\ When the census w^as taken in 
1900, Oklahoma had 398,000 in round numbers, and the Indian Ter- 
ritory had 392,000 population. Since that time Oklahoma has built 
more lines of railroad, established more towns, and our towns have 
grown as fast or faster — I will not sa}^ faster, but I can reasonabl}^ 
assume to say that they have grown as fast— as the towns in the Indian 
Territory". We have placed the figures in this argument at 650,000 
population in Oklahoma, but I notice it has been placed at 700,000 for 
Indian Territory. 

Now, what has been going on since the census was taken? There 
ought to be some means of getting at those figures a little better than 
we have done. The Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache countr}^ (including 
Comanche, Kiowa, and Caddo counties) in Oklahoma was opened after 



262 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

the census was taken, and in those three counties there were about 
100,000 who went in there at one time from the diiferent States. 
That makes an increase in Oklahoma of 100,000 at one time. In addi- 
tion to that, when the census was taken there was Beaver County, 
which only had a population of about 3,000, and now it has a population 
estimated at 9,000. That same proportional growth, Mr. Chairman, 
has been carried on in Woodward County, in Woods County, in Day 
Count}^, in Greer County, in Roger Mills County, in Dewey County, 
in Custer County, in Washington (bounty, and largely in Garfield and 
Grant counties, because the land was not all taken up in those coun- 
ties, and in a number of them only a small part of it was taken up at 
the time the census was taken. 

Now, then, with the acquisition of 100,000 at one time since the cen- 
sus was taken in Oklahoma, with all those big counties taken up in the 
western part of Oklahoma, hundreds of thousand have gone in. More 
railroads have been built, more towns built, and the growth of the 
towns has been as great as in Indian Territory, and yet we only claim 
650,000, as shown by the assessors a year ago. In the Indian Terri- 
tory, where they have had none of these reasons for increase of popu- 
lation, they are claiming 700,000. 

That is the situation, and that is in keeping with some of the argu- 
ments offered before this committee. 1 heard one gentleman say here 
that Sapulpa had over 5,000. I think I can come within 200 of the 
population of Sapulpa. Two thousand five hundred would not miss it 
200, in my judgment. I heard a statement here the other da}^ that 
Ardmore had 15,000 people. That is a mistake. And if we make a 
corresponding reduction in other statements of that kind 

The Chairman. What did the census show for Ardmore — 5,000? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I think so. 

The Chairman. And it was conceded that it probablv has a popula- 
tion of 10,000? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I should say at present that Ardmore has 7,000 or 
8,000. Do you know, Mr. Bixby? 

Mr. BiXBY. No; but I should think about 10,000. 

The Chairman. That is a pretty big gain. 

Mr. Howe. I made the statement in regard to that, and I now find 
by correspondence that it has a litttle over 11,000. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Do you know the basis of their estimate? 

Mr. Howe. The city census. I wrote to ascertain, and my answer 
was that it has between 11,000 and 12,000. I can only give it as given 
to me by one of the best gentlemen I know; a man whom you know 
and whom I believe to be reliable. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Was he a real estate man ? 

Mr. Howe. No, sir; he is a Federal official. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Speaking about towns in Indian Territory, Okla- 
homa at the time of the census had 10,000 or a little less. Oklahoma 
City to-da}?- has not one man less than 25,000. That has been the 
growth in Oklahoma. Guthrie has had almost a proportional growth. 
Shawnee, Elreno, Enid, and dozens of towns J can mention in Okla- 
homa have had a correspondingly large growth. My judgment is that 
we have 700,000 people in Oklahoma; judging from the history of 
those two Territories, the Indian Territory at this time has not within 
150,000 or 200,000 of what Oklahoma has. Indian Territory has more 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 263 

waste land; she has thousands and thousands of acres of land in that 
country which are not settled up — has comparatively no one on it. 

The Boston Mountains run up into that country, and through that 
mountain region there are very few people. On the other hand, we 
have very little waste land of that character in Oklahoma. The 
Wichita Mountains have hundreds of miners scattered through them. 
I think about 3,000 claims have been staked out in that country. Yet 
we have not over 700,000 people in Oklahoma, and those people are 
claiming as many as that in Indian Territory. I say, Mr. Chairman, 
that, judging from what has been going on — and I have had an oppor- 
tunity to know — those people are not within 150,000 of what we are 
at this time in point of numbers, and jQt they are asking for the same 
representation at the constitutional convention. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do 3^ou mean to express the idea onl}^ that Oklahoma 
Territory has grown more rapidly than Indian Territor}^? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lloyd. You do not dispute the proposition that Indian Terri- 
tory has grown more rapidly than any other Territor}^ except Okla- 
homa since the census was taken in 1900? 

Mr. MoGuiRE. I could not say it has grown more rapidl}^ than any 
other Territory, although I should judge, perhaps, that is true; and 
outside of the opening up of that Indian country, Mr. Lloyd, and the 
taking up of all the land in the waste part of Oklahoma, I do not see 
why the Indian Territor^^ should not have grown as fast as Oklahoma. 

Mr. KoBiNSON. What about the coal mines there, and the oil fields, 
which always inject a large incoming population? 

Mr. McGuiRE. The oil fields are on the line; there are as man}^ in 
Oklahoma as in Indian Territory; a large tract of oil country is in 
Oklahoma and not in Indian Territory, as has been discovered now. 
It has been said from time to time that Oklahoma had no minerals. 
A few days ago on the line between Indian Territory and Oklahoma 
they discovered a 6i-foot vein of semianthracite coal. 

Mr. Robinson. But that has not been developed like Indian Terri- 
tory? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No; because in Indian Territory the}^ have been 
developing for years, and Oklahoma is comparatively new. 

Mr. Robinson. Did you take that feature in, that they had a large 
development for years as against your nondevelopment of the coal 
lands ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. They have only developed the coal lands for so long 
a time. They have been developing oil lands in Oklahoma as long as 
they have been developing them in Indian Territory, and this oil land 
is not alone in Indian Territory and not alone in Oklahoma Territory. 
I will show you where it is on the map. The oil land is immediate^ 
north of the Osage Indian Reservation in Oklahoma, including Chau- 
tauqua and Montgomery counties, Kans. That is where the great 
Kansas oil fields are. 

(Mr. McGuire pointed out on the map the location of these oil fields.) 

They extend almost as far west as Arkansas City, and the}^ have dis- 
covered oil in all of this eastern part of the Osage Indian Reservation. 
But they have not as yet prospected in the western part. Immediately 
north of the Osage country in Kansas is the richest oil field that they 
have discovered. Those fields do not extend as far north as Checotah 
in the Indian Territory and that would indicate that the heavy oil 



264 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

field that is to be developed in that country is in Oklahoma, including 
the Osage Nation, Pawnee and Pa^aie counties, and not in the Indian 
Territory. So I think it is safe to conclude that it is Oklahoma that 
has the oil. 

Mr. Robinson. How do you avoid the force of history, where most 
of the Western States, starting with a population of from 60,000 to 
75,000 people, were given statehood, and developed? With the rich- 
ness that has been portrayed in each of these Territories in agricul- 
tural wealth, it would seem that so many people as you have in those 
respective Territories would have change enough in their pockets to 
pay the taxes for establishmg a State government and develop as those 
great Western States did develop when they were admitted with only 
60,000 to 75,000 population each. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I will tell you, Mr. Robinson, there has in all the 
States which have heretofore been admitted to this Union never been 
a condition, so far as real estate is concerned, like that which exists 
to-day in the Indian Territory. In every State in the Union there 
has been real estate to tax, and I will undertake to say now that there 
is not a community scarcely in this country outside of the cities that 
can support a government and support schools without the assistance 
of real estate to tax. And it is an unfortunate condition that exists in 
the Indian Territory that must in some way be met, and that this bill 
introduced b}'- yourself does not meet, and the one introduced by Mr. 
Qua}^ does not meet. 

Mr. Moon. How much Indian land is there in your Territor}'^ that is 
not taxable 'i 

Mr. McGuiRE. I think there are about seven counties that have 
Indian lands, and in ni}^ county there is about 10 per cent; I think in 
Caddo County there is about 10 per cent, and in the other counties 
where Indian land is found there is less than 10 per cent, and still we 
feel the hardship incident to that condition of afi'airs. 

Mr. Howe. Will j^ou allow me, there? 

Mr.- McGuiRE. Certainh^ 

Mr. Howe. There are 3^900,000 acres allotted. 

Mr. McGuiRE. And where that is found we feel the hardship. And 
3' ou take the entire Indian Territory and you will commence to see 
what it means, when compared with a similar condition in Oklahoma. 

The Chairman. This land will not be taxable until the Indians sell? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Receives his land in fee or sells. 

Mr. Moon. You are going to tax the land in Oklahoma that is not 
taxable now; you will tax it under the provisions of your bill? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, sir. 

Mr. Moon. There is no provision against it, is there? 

Mr. McGuiRE. There is no provision in my bill against it, but there 
IS a provision with the Indians and with the Federal Government that 
that land is inalienable until a certain date, and the Territory will never 
undertake to tax the land 

Mr. Moon. That is a matter of speculation, as to what the State will 
undertake to do when it gets control. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I am entirely inclined to think that the American 
Congress will never permit it. 

Mr. Moon. You think 3^our bill will be amended? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I think so; if that provision is not alread}^ in the 
bill. I am not prepared to sa^^ it is not. 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 265 

Mr. MooK. You are willing to get along with territoiy that is not 
to be taxed in the new State; you will submit to an inhibition on it? 
Why would not the same rule hold as to the Indian Territoiw, and let 
them have the government over there ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. 1 would be glad to see them have the government, 
but I am simply discussing these propositions, showing what would 
become of them. I am not opposed to the Indian Territor}^, and 1 
would like to see those people have some relief. It is an unfortunate 
condition. But I am discussing conditions which 1 think would come 
to those people by the Quay or Robinson bill. Neither of those bills 
give them the relief the}" need, and the relief expected, because they 
would have the burden of government under those bills without the 
real estate 

Mr. Moon. I thought ^^our point was that they were going to get 
too much relief to the prejudice of Oklahoma? 

Mr. McGuiRE. If they are attached to Oklahoma it would give them 
local government to the prejudice of Oklahoma, and Oklahoma would 
seriously object to that proposition; but if the}" invite a thing, if they 
want a thing, as suggested by some member of the committee, why 
not give it to them? 

Mr. Moon. You are not opposed to them having an3"thing the}^ 
want ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. Certainly not. 

Something has been said about Oklahoma piling up indebtedness in 
case our institutions should be located before they come. Oklahoma 
has sustained many hardships, and the condition of her debt to-day is 
this. We have $48,000 bonded indebtedness, bonded for school pur- 
poses when Oklahoma was originally admitted. We did not then have 
an}" real estate to tax and that is where we got our bonded indebted- 
ness. We have been accumulating from year to year to offset that 
indebtedness, and the bonds have not matured at this time; and Okla- 
homa has raised a sufficient amount of money and there is a sufficient 
sum now in the hands of the Territorial treasurer to discharge every 
dollar of that bonded indebtedness, and to-day in the Oklahoma treas- 
ury there is $885,000 in cash. And Oklahoma has an outstanding 
warrant indebtedness in the Territory of |^600,000. So it does not 
look as if the people of Oklahoma were very reckless; it does not look 
as though we were piling up a debt for any country; because we have 
at this time $285,000 in cash after every dollar of indebtedness in that 
Territory has been paid. That is our condition. 

Mr. Lloyd. Do you not think that that encouraging financial con- 
dition in your Territory ought to be a very encouraging indication to 
the people of the Indian Territory ? 

Mr. McGuiRE. It might be. and would be, if conditions were the 
same there, but you can see that the conditions are not the same there, 
but are very different. 

Mr. Lloyd. But I understood you to say in argument that your 
indebtedness was brought about by reason of the fact that when you 
began as a Territory you had the same conditions to meet as the Indian 
Territory must meet?^ 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is true; we had that condition to meet at that 
time, but the conditions in Oklahoma were such that we soon came out 
from under those disadvantages, because our real estate was taxable; 
and if our real estate was not taxable, instead of having $285,000 to 



266 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA 

our credit to-day we would be continually plunging more and more 
into debt from time to time. 

Our real estate became taxable and it is the real estate tax that has 
enabled us to carry on our goyernment, to organize our school districts, 
to build our schoolhouses, and pay our indebtedness. 

Mr. Lloyd. Can 3^ou tell us the amount of the assessment of real 
estate in Oklahoma and the amount of personal assessment at the last 
assessment? 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, sir; 1 can not. 

Mr. Spalding. Real estate in Oklahoma was not taxable, because 
the title was in the Goyernment? 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is true; that is it. 

Mr. Spalding. And it has become taxable as the people haye proyen 
up their claims? 

Mr. McGuiRE. That is right. But that condition does not exist in 
the Indian Territory. The}^ would not onl}^ haye the same condition 
as in Oklahoma to meet in the beginning, but they would haye a per- 
petuation of those difficulties, and if the}^ come in with Oklahoma we 
will haye the burden to carry. We will haye to endure the hardship 
incident to frontier life, and 1 say it will be loading us too heay}^ It 
ought not to be asked of the people of Oklahoma at this time, either 
for political or any other purpose, to carry that burden. 

So there is only one of two things to do, in m}^ judgment; either let 
Oklahoma come in alone as a State or else throw the lines around 
Indian Territory and leaye it as unorganized territory until a certain 
amount of their land becomes taxable and then let them come in. 

Mr. Moon. 1 do not understand why jou, in making your fight for 
Oklahoma, persist in your conyiction that the people of the Indian Ter- 
ritoiy should not haye some relief, either b}^ a Territorial goyernment 
or some other method. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I did not intend to conye}^ that idea. 

Mr. Moon. Because if what you say is true about the conditions and 
the}^ are as hard as they say, and they can not be changed, there ought 
neyer to be any relief for the Territory. 

Mr. Robinson. Mr. McGuire in his opening statement assumed, I 
belieye, that there ought to be ultimatelj^ a joining of those two sections. 

Mr. McGuiRE. I haye not any objection to their ultimate joining. 
Mr. Moon, I did not mean to say that they should not haye this relief, 
but it is an unfortunate condition, and I do not see why I should not 
discuss it, and the mere fact that I haye discussed it and haye suggested 
the unfortunate condition oyer there does not mean that I am opposed 
to their haying relief, whateyer that relief should be. I should like 
to see them haye relief, but that does not preyent me discussing the 
conditions. This Robinson bill proyides 15,000,000 for the support of 
common schools, the intention of which is to offset the price of the 
school land in Oklahoma Territory. 

We haye over two and one-half million acres of school land in Okla- 
homa, worth $25,000,000. It occurs to me, gentlemen, that the Fed- 
eral Goyernment is not likely to set apart $25,000,000 for the people 
of the Indian Territory, and this would impose another hardship upon 
the people of Oklahoma if it were not done. I say we haye gone 
there and we haye faced eyery hardship incident to frontier life; our 
people haye gone there — not wealth}^ — the^^ haye gone upon quarter 
sections of land and they haye economized ; they haye stayed there and 



STATEHOOD FOK OKLAHOMA. 267 

worked year in and year out. The American Congress has been 
magnanimous with the people and has given us this immense sum for 
school lands, from which atc are obtaining at this time about 1400,000 
a 3^ear, and in the near future we will have 1500,000 a year. It is a 
fortunate condition in one particular for the people of Oklahoma. It 
is ours; it belongs to us. But I say that the General Government is 
not going to make an appropriation of $25,000,000 for the people of 
the Indian Territory, and it would take that sum to offset the price of 
the school land in Oklahooaa. 

The Chair^iax. I did think of answering your question, and then 
thought perhaps I would not. I thought of saving that from the tes- 
timony, and from the statements made here, Oklahoma has been an 
excellent Territor}^ to go to and that those who have gone to Oklahoma 
have accumulated wealth very rapidh^, indeed, and great wealth; and 
without anv great hardship as compared, perhaps, to the settlers in 
the wooded countries — the more heavily timbered countries, and the}^ 
seem to be a verv prosperous community now. 

Mr. McGuiRE. Yes; we have the get-there qualities. 

Mr. RoBiNSOX. Is it not true that the Government was not onh^ 
magnanimous to Oklahoma, but likewise b}^ the same act enabled her 
to form a Territorial form of government, and provided that ultimately 
the people should be attached to Indian Territorv or that Indian Ter- 
ritory should be attached to Oklahoma, and does not that serve notice 
to the people who have gone through the patrimon}' days that they 
must 34eld part of the privileges that tliev have had and go in with 
the people of the Indian Territory i 

Mr. McGuiRE. There is nothing in the first place that means that 
we shall be attached to the Indian Territory. If it were it is simply a 
provision passed by the American Congress and could be substituted 
by another law. No difference about what the original intent was, it 
is simpl}^ a Congressional act, and if the American Congress wants to 
change the policy by reason of certain developments in the Indian Ter- 
ritory or elsewhere there is nothing in the wa}^ of doing it. 

Mr. RoBixsox. They have the right; but wh}^ was the provision 
put in, if it was not as I suggested? 

Mr. McGuiRE. I undertake to say that as long as the American 
Congress has done nothing more for Oklahoma than it has done for 
other States we have no right to assume that it was the purpose of the 
American Congress to set aside the same amount of land in Indian 
Territor3\ I will undertake to say that it has never been the inten- 
tion of the American Congress to take part of the school land now 
belonging to the people of Oklahoma and give it to the Indian 
Territor}^ 

Mr. KoBixsoN. But jouv whole Territory was formed b}^ Congres- 
sional process of piecemeal attachment, and this attaching of Indian 
Territor}^ to j^ou would simply be what was intended and something 
of which notice was served on 3^ou b}^ the original act, and if it meant 
anything, did it not mean that^ 

Mr. McGuiRE. No, sir; for this reason: Every time there has been 
a section cJf countr}^ attached to Oklahoma since the organization of 
that Territorv there has come with that countr}^ school land provided 
for in that countrv, and if we follow out the same police that the Gov- 
ernment has followed since the early organization of Oklahoma Terri- 



268 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

toiy , it simply means that when the Indian Territoiy comes their school 
land must come or its equivalent in money. 

Mr. Robinson. 1 might suggest, Mr. McGuire, that the bill that 1 
introduced provides that you should have for Indian Territory's allot- 
ment of land an ample provision. 

Mr. McGuiRE. An ample provision ? I understood it was $5,000,000. 

Mr. Robinson. Selected within Oklahoma Territoiy, but really giv- 
ing it to you as the public land. 

Mr. McGuiRE. We are opposed, Mr. Chairman, to going to Okla- 
homa, or Nebraska, or Kansas, or Indiana, or any other State and 
getting land and giving it to Indian Territor}^. I say this Govern- 
ment should provide that land from Indian Territorv. 

Mr. Robinson. But they are provided from the United States pub- 
lic lands, and what difference does it make that a State line separates 
them? 

Mr. McGuiRE. It might not make any difference to those having no 
interest in us, but we are entitled to have men locate, pay taxes upon 
this real estate, and not exempt from taxation that land and take the 
proceeds over and give them to the people of Indian Territory. I say 
it is not the polic}^ of the Government, and the Government, in my 
judgment, will not do it. We are entitled to those public lands; we 
are entitled to have settlers there; we are entitled to have it deeded; 
we are entitled to the taxes coming from that land. 

A Bystander. They can be sold and you would get the annual fund? 

Mr. McGuiRE. It could be done, but it would not be proper to do it. 
We are not coming to Indian Territory and asking something that 
belongs to it, and in my judgment the Indian Territory has no right 
to the public lands yet remaining in Oklahoma. 

Mr. Chairman, I have here a few observations with reference to the 
conditions in Oklahoma, and it will only take me a few moments, and I 
will undertake to read it, and that will close my argument on this 
subject. 

I have here covered a few things which have been said of Oklahoma, 
and refer to some matters which I think have not been discussed before 
the committee: 

''The present area of Oklahoma is 38,830 square miles; larger than 
Indiana or Maine, and about the size or a little less in size than the 
State of Ohio; larger than New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware combined; larger than 
West Virginia or South Carolina, and larger than Maryland and Ver- 
mont together. Oklahoma has a population of not less than 650,000. 
Her wealth is between $^00,000,000 and $500,000,000. She has seven 
educational institutions of higher learning, under the control of the 
Territory, and many schools and colleges under the supervision of reli- 
gious denominations. She has more than 250,000 children of school age, 
and 3,000 j^oung men and women in the institutions of higher learning. 

"There are in the Territor}^ at this time about 1,000 churches, A^alued 
at $1,000,000; 2,000 Sunday schools, with 12,000 officers and teachers 
and 100,000 pupils. We have 30 daily newspapers; 260 weekl}^ news- 
papers, besides many quarterly, monthly, and semiweekh'' publica- 
tions. We have 2,200 district schoolhouses, worth one million and a 
half dollars. The total amount of land reserved for the common 
schools, universities, and public buildings for the future State of Okla- 
homa is 2,052,000 acres, a large part of which is leased and at the 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 269 

present time brings an income to the educational interests of tlie Ter- 
ritory of $1,000 per day. Within the next 3^ear and before Oklahoma 
can be admitted as a State this enormous sum will be increased to a 
half million dollars per annum. 

''Every city and town has its women's clubs and musical, social, 
literar}^, and Chautauqua societies. It is the meeting ground of many 
progressive and intelligent people from every State in the Union. It 
is there that the civilization of the North and the South, the East and 
the West are blending and uniting to form the most progressive and 
enterprising people on earth. We are fast becoming an ideal com- 
monwealth. Our climatic conditions are superb, and we are one of 
the most healthful countries in the world. The average an.nual tem- 
perature for the last ten years ranges from 56.2 degrees in the north 
to 62 degrees in the south. We escape the rigors of the northern 
winters and the extreme sultriness and heat of the Southern States. 
Not only is our climate unsurpassed for healthfulness, but we have a 
soil which produces more abundantly than is found in the latitude of 
North Carolina and Tennessee, and 3^et the maximum temperature is 
seldom greater than that in Nebraska, Iowa, and the Dakotas, due 
presumably to our altitude. 

"Oklahoma produces almost every article raised b}^ the people of 
ever}^ other State in the Union. Of the three great staples, cotton, 
wheat, and corn, we are unexcelled both in quantit}^ and quality in 
proportion to the number of acres planted. We are developing into 
one of the richest oil fields in the world, and recently large quantities 
of coal have been discovered in the eastern portions of the Territor3\ 
We produced last vear, or diu'ing the 3^ear of 1902, 36,000,000 bushels 
of wheat, 65,000,000 bushels of corn, 10,000,000 bushels of oats, 
3,000,000 bushels of kaffir corn, 7,000,000 pounds of broom corn, ancl 
220,000 bales of cotton. In 1899 onl3^ three States in the Union out- 
ranked us in the production of broom corn, they being Illinois, 
Kansas, and Missouri. Corn, oats, and wheat are the staples in the 
northern portion and cotton and corn in the south half of the Territor3\ 

''Stock of all kinds, including cattle and horses, are raised at per- 
haps one-half the expense the3^ cost in the Northern and Eastern States. 
We have 400,000 horses, 100,000 mules, 50,000 sheep, 250,000 swine, 
and 1,500,000 cattle, worth $30,000,000. Fruit flourishes in almost 
every section. There were more than 1,000 miles of railroad completed 
in Oklahoma in 1903, twice as much as was built b3^ an3^ State in the 
Union, and one-sixth as much as w^as built in the United States for the 
same period. We have more than 3,000 miles of railroad in operation 
at this time, with no abatement in railroad construction from what it 
has been in 1902 and 19U3. There are in Oklahoma about 350 Territo- 
rial and national banks, with a combined capital of more than $5,000,000 
and deposits amounting to $25,000,000. 

"An3" one of four counties in Oklahoma is larger than either of the 
States of Connecticut, Delaware, or Rhode Island. 

"Some 3,000,000 acres of land, known as original Oklahoma, w^ere 
thrown open to settlement April 22, 1889. The Sac and Fox and 
Pottawatomie reservations, in the eastern part of the Territor3^, were 
opened to settlement in September, 1891. The reservations contained 
1,282,431: acres. The Cheyenne and Arapaho reservations, embracing 
4,297,771 acres, were opened in April, 1892. 

"The Cherokee Strip, containing 6,014,239 acres, was opened on 



270 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

September 16, 1893. The Kickapoo Reservation was opened in 1895 
and contained 206,662 acres. The Kiowa, Comanche, Apache, and 
Wichita reservations, comprising- some 4,000,000 acres of land, were 
opened to settlement in August, 1901. 

"In 1890, No Man's Land, now known as Beaver Count}^, contain- 
ing 3,681,000 acres, was attached to the Territory. Greer County, 
formerlv a part of the State of Texas, was also attached to the Terri- 
tory." 

that was the absorption plan in Oklahoma. 

' ' The mineral resources of Oklahoma are comparativeh^ undeveloped. 
The Wichita Mountains, situated in southeastern Oklahoma, are rich 
in iron ore, and various other minerals have been discovered in paying 
quantities. This mineral district has recent!}^ been added to Okla- 
homa, being comprised in what was known as the Kiowa, Comanche, 
and Apache Indian reservations, and opened to settlement in 1900. 
This condition accounts for the undeveloped natural resources of that 
mineral section. Recently large quantities of oil and gas have been dis- 
covered in that part of the Territor}", and from present indications it 
will be one of the richest mineral-producing countries in the United 
States. The mineral-bearing mountains have been divided into five 
mining districts. It is reported at this time that about 3,000 people 
have recorded claims in the various districts. From this particular 
section there are no shipping mines yet, though single carloads have 
been recently sent to the smelters to ascertain the value of the ore. 

'"There are, perhaps, no richer oil and gas fields to be found any- 
where than in eastern Oklahoma. It is now estimated that the output 
of oil within a year will amount to millions of dollars annually. Hun- 
dreds of thousands of dollars are being spent at this time and the oil 
and gas fields rapidly developed. It is estimated that at least one- 
twelfth of Oklahoma will develop into rich oil fields. Within the last 
sixty da3^s a vein of coal has been discovered 6i feet thick, semianthra- 
cite in quality, in eastern Oklahoma. It is the rankest folly to say 
that Oklahoma is without mineral resources. Developments are alread}^ 
sufiicient to repel such argument. Perhaps no State in the Union 
excels that Territor}" in natural resources, and for the length of time 
which Oklahoma has been settled the development of those resources 
have been remarkable. 

''Manufacturing is among the various industries which engage our 
population, and has made great advancement in the past few ^^ears. 
While not so fortunate as other localities in our suppl}^ of cheap fuel 
or water power, j^et those who have been the pioneers in establishing 
these enterprises have prospered. With several new lines of railroad 
coming direct!}^ through the coal fields on the east and the discover}^ 
of oil and gas within our own Territorj^ as well as the Indian Terri- 
tory, the prospect is much brighter for cheaper fuel and the consequent 
success of other institutions now in contemplation. 

"The raw material is at hand on every side, and the increasing num- 
ber of flour mills, cotton-seed oil mills, plaster and cement mills, Ibroom 
factories, shoe factories, foundries, gas plants, cracker and candy 
manufactories, etc., all of which are in a flourishing condition, indicate 
that Oklahoma in the near future may be classed among the manufac- 
turing States. 

"The immense amount of wheat straw that is burned or allowed to 
go to waste would seem to make this an inviting field for paper mills. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 271 

The vast quantity of farm machineiy shipped into the Territor}^ would 
suggest a possible hicrative industr}^ in its manufacture. Ice factories, 
creameries, cheese factories, canning- factories, brick plants, and many 
other manufacturing industries, have found an excellent field here in 
which to locate. 

'•At the present time there are about a hundred flouring mills in 
operation in the Territor}^, owned and controlled b}' our own people, 
with a total capitalization of about ^2.000,000. These corporations 
represent investments of from ^50,000 to 1250.000. 

''The output of Oklahoma's flour mills during the past few 3^ears 
has been enormous, and the products are distributed from the British 
provinces on the north to the Gulf States on the south, and the vast 
amount of Oklahoma flour has been going into the export trade and is 
no small factor in the ports of Galveston, Baltimore, and ISIew York. 

"Yet it is a fact that the milling business in Oklahoma is yet in its 
infancy. A large number of mills were erected during the past 5^ear, 
and the capacity of nearl}^ all was increased, so that the increased per 
cent during the past year amounts to about one-fourth the original 
capacity. 

"Flour manufacturing in Oklahoma has proven ver}^ successful and 
but few lines of enterprise ofier as good profits. It is said there has 
never been a failure in the fiour business in the Territory, and of the 
100 mills now in operation there is perhaps not one which is not pa}^- 
ing a fair dividend. 

"According to the 1900 census there are 15,771 illiterate persons in 
Oklahoma. In Georgia there are 180,120; in Arkansas, 190,655; in 
Illinois, 158,000; Kentuckv has 262,000: Louisiana, 381,000; Missis- 
sippi has 352,000; North Ciirolina, 386,000; Tennessee, 306,930 illiter- 
ates. These figures comprise persons of all nationalities. The 
illiterate white population of Oklahoma, according to the census of 
1900, is 6,279. In Alabama the illiterate white population is 103,507; 
of Georgia, 100,131; of North Carolina, 175,615; of Tennessee, 157,396. 
Some of the States mentioned have scarcel}^ a greater population than 
Oklahoma. 

'•Oklahoma has enough salt to supply the markets of the world. 
The great salt reserve in the western part of the Territor}^ contains 
approximately 400 square miles. This great bed of solid rock salt is 
of illimitable depth and inexhaustible supply. Saline deposits are 
found in various parts of western Oklahoma, and the manufacture of 
salt is destined to be one of the great industries of that State." 

At the time of the admission of South Dakota President Harrison 
presented the report for the Senate committee. President Harrison 
was unquestionably one of the great American constitutional law3"ers, 
and because he did prepare the report when South Dakota was admitted 
I have taken a few extracts from that report, the intention being to 
indicate, so far as that report will, an idea to the committee, the 
Senate of the United States, and the American Congress at that time 
of what the people of that section desiring to be admitted as a State 
should have to say of their admission. 

President Harrison said: 

" No form of procedure for the organization of new States is pre- 
scribed by the Constitution or by any law of Congress. Each case 
has been dealt with as it presented itself. In some cases Congress has 



272 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

taken the initiative by the passage of enabling- acts; in others the 
movement has originated with the people of the proposed State, and 
Congress has by appropriate acts accepted and ratified the constitu- 
tion and State government proposed. Twenty-live new States have 
been added to the original thirteen. In the cases of Vermont, Ken- 
tucky, Tennessee, Maine, Michigan, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Cali- 
fornia, and Oregon there were no enabling acts. In the case of 
Nevada a constitution was formed without any enabling act, but was 
rejected b}^ the people. The second constitution was formed under an 
enabling act. In the case of Wisconsin the constitution framed under 
the enabling act was rejected by the people, and subsequently a new 
convention was called, which framed the constitution under which the 
State was finally admitted. 

"To denj" to the people of an}^ Territor}^ the right to assemble in 
popular convention, and to propose to Congress the admission of such 
Territor}^ or any part thereof into the Union as a State, is to deny 
rights which, we believe, are guaranteed by the Constitution. So long^ 
as the movement is subordinated to the Constitution of the United 
States and to the existing Territorial authorities; so long as the pro- 
posed State government is only such, and assumes no function of an 
existing government, but awaits the recognition of Congress, the pro- 
ceedings are justified by safe and abundant precedents, and do not 
carry any suggestion of a dislo3^al spirit or involve any danger of a 
conflict of authority. Such is the attitude of Dakota. She has made 
herself read}^, and now respectfully, but urgently, asks to be endowed 
with the dignities and privileges of an American State." 

OKLAHOMA LARGER THAN TWELVE STATES. 

Square miles. 

Oklahoma 38,830 

Connecticut 4, 845 

Delaware 1,960 

Indiana 35,910 

Maine 29,895 

Maryland -.. 9,860 

Massachusetts 8, 040 

New^ Hampshire 9, 005 

New Jersey 7, 525 

Ehode Island 1,053 

South Carolina 30, 170 

Vermont 9, 135 

West Virginia 24, 645 

Nine States in the Union do not exceed Oklahoma's area by 10,000 
square miles. They are as follows: 

Kentucky 40,400 

Louisiana 48, 720 

Mississippi 46, 810 

New York 47,620 

North Carolina 48, 580 

Ohio 40, 760 

Pennsylvania 44, 985 

Tennessee 41, 750 

Virginia 40, 125 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 



273 



state. 



Date 
of ad- 
mission. 



Popula- 
tion 
when ad- 
mitted. 



Vermont 

Kentuckj- 

Tennessee ... 

Ohio 

Louisiana 

Indiana 

Mississippi . . . 
Alabama. ... 

Illinois 

Maine 

Missouri 

Arkansas 

Michigan 

Florida 

Texas 

Iowa 

Wisconsin ... 

California 

Minnesota . . . 

Oregon 

Kansas 

West Virginia 

Nevada 

Nebraska 

Colorado 



1791 
1792 
1796 
1802 
1812 
1816 
1817 
1819 
1818 
1820 
1821 
1836 
1837 
1845 
1845 
1846 
1848 
1850 
1858 
1859 
1861 
1863 
1864 
1867 
1876 



85, 425 
73, 677 
67, 000 
45, 365 
76, 556 
63, 897 

75, 512 

34, 620 

298, 269 
66, 557 
52, 240 
65, 000 
64, 000 

143,000 
78, 819 

180, 000 
92, 597 

120, 000 
50, 000 

107, 206 

350. 000 
40, 000 

100, 000 

100, 000 



The experience of Oklahoma has been that in every count}^ where 
Indian allotments are numerous the burden of taxation is increased. 
This is true of PaAvnee, Payne, Lincoln, and a number of other coun- 
ties. Comparativeh^ speaking-, there is but a small per cent of these 
counties allotted; the burden resulting from the allotment of the 
choicest land and large bodies in the same localit}^. Should the Indian 
Territor}^ be admitted at this time, this same burden would rest heavih" 
not only upon every part of the Indian Territoiy, but Oklahoma as 
Avell. There would be no means of organizing school districts, except 
in the cities, and not one cent b}^ wa}^ of bonds could be voted for con- 
struction of schoolhouses as long as the land is held by the Indians. 

We have 650,000 educated. Christianized, patriotic, and liberty- 
loving people. We have as much push, energy, and perseverance as 
is found an^^wdiere in the land. 

In Oklahoma is represented, and creditably represented, every State 
and Territoiy in the Union. It is there that the vigor of the North 
has met the love of ease and hospitalit}^ of the South. Whatever of 
excellence was possessed b}^ those who came from the East has been 
absorbed and appropriated by the energy of the West. 

While it is perhaps true that no definite prerequisite has been estab- 
lished for the admission of States to the Union, is it not enough when 
w^e come with treble the population other Territories have had when 
they were admitted? In all the history of the American Republic no 
Territoiy has ever had one-half the population which Oklahoma has 
to-day. Few^ have had one-third, and the great majority have been 
admitted with less than one-fourth of our present population. 

But, the}" sa}', are 3^ou not well governed? Are your officers not 
proficient and honest? Such interrogatories, Mr. Chairman, are onh^ 
propounded b}' those who, as a last extremity, could offer nothing 
better. It is not sufficient to say we are well governed. It is not 
enough to say our officers are honest and capable. It is unnecessary 
for me to spend time in a feeble efi^^ort to portra}' the kind of govern- 
ment we have in Oklahoma. 



OKLA- 



-18 



274 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

All these interrog'atories are abundantly answered when I say to 
you that Oklahoma is the dwelling place of patriotic and liberty-loving 
American citizens. The history of the American Republic since our 
earliest infancy has been written b}^ acts of loyalty, valor, and patri- 
otism of our people wherever they are found; and I am constrained 
to observe that if you will tell me where the Stars and Stripes are 
found 1 will tell you the kind of government the people have. 

No people in the world have been more inspired to American senti- 
ment and patriotic impulses than those whom I have the honor to 
feebly represent. We are not complaining of our laws, nor the man- 
ner in which those laws have been administered by our public officers; 
we are not complaining of our Government, neither local nor national. 
They are of the kind who believe we have the best Government ever 
devised by the wit of man. 

We are persistently but respectfully demanding admission to the 
Union because it is our sacred right guaranteed by the Constitution, 
the fundamental law of the land. In this we are asking nothing except 
that to which our people are equitably and lawfully entitled. The 
American Republic has expanded by the acquisition of territory and 
the admission of States to the Union, and at no time has this policy 
been more in favor with the American people than now. 

It is a remarkable coincidence that during the prolonged debate in 
the United States Senate at the last session of the Fifty-seventh Con- 
gress, when that body was considering the proposed admission of Ter- 
ritories into the Union, not one word was spoken in derogation of 
Oklahoma or her claims to statehood. We are entitled to admission, 
and entitled to it now. 

To bring us into the Union is the natural and instinctive thing for 
the American Congress to do; to reject us is the unnatural and almost 
vicious thing to do. Fourteen years ago this favorite child was born 
to the Republic, and its growth has been unparalleled at an}^ epoch of 
our national history, but commensurate with that growth has been 
her benign influence for good. Commercially, educationally, and 
morally she is in the front of the procession of the States and Terri- 
tories of the Union. 

We ask admission for the reason and upon the ground which has 
always met with popular response from the American people, and that 
is because we merit it. We have met every requirement in heaped 
and rounded measure, and when you accord statehood to Oklahoma 
3^ou shall have given us no greater prize than we bring to you. W^ith 
the natural and acquired resources of that country lying within our 
own borders, and peopled by persons of our own blood, no more 
meritorious measure will be checked upon the records of the Fifty- 
eighth Congress than the admission of Oklahoma to the Union. And 
it is the desire of 700,000 liberty-loving people, whose hearts beat 
with patriotic impulses, that Oklahoma, the favored child of the Re- 
public, be permitted to add another star to the azure of Old Glory. 
[Applause.] 

STATEMENT OF REV. A. GRANT EVANS, OF MUSCOGEE, IND. T. 

My name is A. Grant Evans. I am at present president of Henry 
Kendall College, at Muscogee, Ind. T., which position I have held for 
nearly six years. I came to the Indian Territory first in 1884, and 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 275 

worked for several years as a missionary among- the full-blood Chero- 
kees, thus 1 have had excellent opportunities of learning conditions in 
the Indian Territory, and I have also given some practical evidence of 
my strong interest in and sympathy for the full-blood Indians. I have 
asked permission to make a statement before this committee because I 
believe it will have a most important bearing upon the consideration 
of any measure of statehood which may be discussed. I am in Wash- 
ington as the duly-accredited delegate of a convention which was held 
at Okmulgee, Ind. T., on January 19, 1901:. The following is my 
credentials : 

To the Congress of the United States: 

This is to certify that Rev. A. Grant Evans, of Muscogee, Ind. T., is the duly 
elected representative of the business men of the Creek Nation by authority of his 
election at a mass convention held at Okmulgee, January 19, 1904. Mr. Evans is 
charged with the task of attempting to secure the removal of the restrictions surround- 
ing the sale of Indian lands in the Creek Nation, and was selected at this convention 
as the accredited delegate to proceed to AVashington in this interest. He represents 
the most important interests of the business element in the Indian Territory in a 
capacity as nearly official as under present conditions is possible. 

Clarence B. Douglas, Secretary. 

Okmulgee, January 19, 1904. 

All residents of the Indian Territory interested in the removal of 
of the restrictions upon the sale of the surplus allotted lands of Indian 
citizens were invited to this convention. There was a large attendance 
of business men, especially from the Creek Nation, where alone the 
sale of lands under restrictive regulations is going on. I know per- 
sonally many members of the convention. It was composed very 
largely of business and professional men of the highest standing in 
the country. There was manifested the most earnest desire to show 
every possible consideration for the real Indian citizen. The conven- 
tion arranged to ask the town councils of the various towns in the 
Indian Territory for an expression of their opinion upon the working 
of the present system. It also arranged to ask a similar statement 
of opinion from a number of ministers of the gospel. It arranged to 
have taken regularly attested depositions from a number of prominent 
citizens, both Indian and white, and to invite the Secretary of the 
Interior to be represented at the taking of these depositions in order 
that the most reliable information bearing on the matter might be 
gathered. The Secretary of the Interior did not accept this invitation. 
In addition to this, the convention adopted the following statement of 
its reasons for asking the removal of the present restrictive regulations: 

1. Because the allottees, excepting a very small class of non-English speaking 
full bloods, are exactly like other United States citizens in appearance, clothing, man- 
ner, language, intelligence, education, and habits, and are as competent in business 
affairs. 

2. Because the theory of protecting the incompetent's estate by selling his land 
and handing the incompetent the money is itself utterly absurd. Because destroy- 
ing the independence and power of initiative of the allottee would reduce him to the 
status of a reservation Indian, would degrade him and impair his development. 

3. Because under present rules the competition of bidders, except speculators, is 
destroyed, and the great body of allottees are denied the advantage which free 
immigration would afford by increased competition. 

4. Because 25 pieces a week, the present official limit of offering, would take sixty- 
five years to get one chance of sale to 85,000 allottees. Because on the basis of half 
the offerings resulting in sale (a high estimate as demonstrated by results to date) it 
would take one hundred and twenty years to give each allottee his statutory right of 
sale. In the five years only 3,250 citizens could exercise the right granted by Con- 
gress and 81,750 citizens would have been denied their statutory right. 



276 



STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 



5. Because the act of Congress providing sales has been nulUfied by its adminis- 
tration, which has prevented sales, instead of allowing them; 7 sales having been 
made up to December 15, 1903, in two years and nine months from the date of the 
act authorizing sales of February, 1901. 

6. Because the sales made already demonstrate that the bankers and speculators 
are getting all the land sold. 

7. Because putting up the bars against actual settlers, who would be the most 
important and the most numerous class of bidders, diminishes the average price of 
the whole of these lands. 

8. Because the selling price of a few very choice pieces, on which the entire specu- 
lative bidding is concentrated, forms a mischievous and misleading example, whose 
only value is that such artificial high price may be offered as an illustration of the 
excellence of a notoriously bad system. As well prove 'the value of bread by offering 
at auction twenty-five loaves of bread to the speculative agents of 500,000 hungry 
men. In many cases, however, the prices are lower under the present method than 
under the previous rules. 

9. Because speculators buying these lands will not improve them, and thus the 
development of the country will be retarded. 

10. Because the actual settler if permitted to buy would improve the land, would 
build roads, bridges, schoolhouses, and make a good neighbor and a good example 
of thrift and industry to the allottee, to the great increase in value of land remaining 
in the hands of the allottee and his family. Because the adult allottees own only a 
fourth of the land and can only sell a part of this fraction, so that in no event can a 
large part change hands except as minors become adult. It should be remembered 
that many adults will not sell an acre of their land. 

11. Because the allottee ought to be allowed to choose his neighbor by dealing 
direct with actual settlers, and not be compelled to submit to any kind of transient 
tenant neighbor the speculator landlord might impose on him. The migratory 
tenant, who is indifferent about a permanent home, is a bad class and injures any 
country. 

12. Because the actual settler should not be made a victim of the speculator and 
compelled to pay tribute to a man whose sole service is putting up ready money 
and complying with the very intricate rules governing these sales. 

13. Because the present method is causing ruinous foreclosure of mortgages on 
work horses and cattle and chattels of allottees who went in debt in the belief that 
a sale of a portion of their land would give them ready money. 

14. Because the land under the present method is kept unproductive, and until 
made productive and thus taxable, no government with the modern necessities of 
schools and roads is practicable. 

15. Because the present method is a fatal obstacle to the development of Indian 
Territory and the Southwest. It is an astonishing thing that the interest of the . 
600,000 whites, whose industry, intelligence, and high character must create in large 
degree, the great values in Indian Territorj^, is never even considered in contem- 
plating this subject. 

16. Because the present method engorges business in the Indian agent's office and 
in the Interior Department, and thus prevents the transaction of other business of 
great importance. 

17. Because the present method will prevent the completion, within any reason- 
able time, of the work of allotting the lands, completing the town schedules, the 
sales of surplus land, coal fields, and the very numerous other details of closing the 
vast estate of Indian Territory. 

18. Because the present method has made and will continue to make a huge charge 
on the Treasury of the United States to support a system injurious alike to theallotee, 
to the settler, and to every interest in the Southwest. 

19. Because the administration by a corps of clerks in the Interior Department at 
Washington, D. C, at a distance of 1,500 miles, of the private business of 85,000 
people, is un-American and absolutely senseless. Because their power to review, 
reverse, embarrass, and dominate the Indian agent, the Inspector and the Dawes 
Commission, who are on the ground and know conditions better, has led to great 
delay and very great expense to the United States Treasury without any adequate 
compensation to justify the interference. 

20. Because the Secretary of the Interior, being in charge of the huge business of 
the Pension Bureau; of the General Land Office with its intricate questions arising 
in all the Western States; of the Patent Office with its hundreds of thousands of 
patents; of the Indian Office with its great number of wild tribes and endless detail, 
and of many other subjects of allied interest, can not have personal knowledge or 
even read all the letters, orders, and opinions he daily signs in vast numbers. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 277 

Because he can not know and does not know and never will know^ the true and con- 
stantly changing conditions of Indian Territory. Because the present system means 
and must necessarily mean that the people of Indian Territory are absolutely subject 
to the domination of the corps of employees of the Indian Territory Division of the 
Interior Department. These men, frequently misled by false reports, find instances 
of egregious fraud a basis of estimating the integrity and intelligence of the citizen- 
ship of Indian Territory and have done us infinite harm. 

21. Because the tremendous appropriations necessary to maintain the present sys- 
tem serve no good use except to provide salaries for these employees, whose tenure 
of office wull end when this unjust, injurious, and vexatious system is ended. Their . 
advocacy of the wisdom of the present method, which pro\^des their living, is the 
only feature of the system that has a sensible foundation. 

22. It is the sincere conviction of this convention that the best thing w^hich can 
be done for even our most helpless Indian fellow-citizens is to place their protection 
with the courts, which normally protect the interests of the helpless and incompe- 
tent, and in all respects to place them as rapidly as possible in the position of ordi- 
nary citizens, so that instead of being American Indians these people, w^ho surelj^ 
have the fullest right to the title, may become in name and in fact American citizens. 

It is ni}^ desire, Mr. Chairman, to place before the committee, in 
addition to these resolutions, a summary" of the evidence bearing- upon 
this matter which has been g"athered. The following petition has been 
considered and officially signed by the town councils of the following 
towns: Fort Gibson, Webbers Falls, Centralia, Addington, Emet, 
Muldrow, Goodwater, Stilwell, Welch, Broken Arrow, Sulphur 
Springs, Catoosa, Westville, Roff, Chickasha, Muscogee, Bokchito, 
Clarksville. 

PETITION. 

To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled: 

We, the undersigned, acting on behalf of the city of , humbly pray that the 

restrictions now governing the sale and lease of lands in Indian Territory, except 
homesteads, be removed by act of Congress for the following reasons: 

First. The lands of the Territory can not otherwise be improved and fitted to bear 
the burden of taxation necessary to support self-government, to establish schools, 
build roads and bridges, and other public works, or to administer the laws necessary 
for the preservation of peace and order. 

Second. The former members of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes have been a 
Christian, civilized, agricultural people for five generations, and with full school priv- 
ileges and constitutional laws for over a half centur}-. They are as competent to 
manage their own affairs as the people in any of the other States of the nation, 
whether East or West. The per cent of incompetence, whether from minority or 
from other cause, is as low among the members of this former so-called Five Civil- 
ized Tribes as among citizens of the older States. The incompetent, minor or adult, 
can be best protected by the usual medium of probate courts, and the overwhelming 
percentage of competent members should not be embarrassed in the management of 
their affairs. 

In pursuance of the policy of the United States as expressed in the law-s passed by 
Congress during the last ten years, Indian Territory must very soon assume the bur- 
den of State taxation, and it is of the highest importance that the lands should be 
cultivated and the people put in a position to bear the reasonable burdens of citizen- 
ship under the new method of government, which is contemplated to take place in a 
very short time. 

Respectfully submitted. 

1 will file with this statement a petition adopted by a number of 
ministers of the Gospel, as well as b}^ some other citizens. 

I will also, with 3^our permission, iile with you copies of depositions 
taken, which have been dul}^ sworn to by some of the most prominent 
Indian and white citizens of the Territor3^ The efiort has been made 
to secuj'e depositions which will be of real value as coming from men 
of high standing not connected with land speculation, and whose char- 
acters are above suspicion. 



278 STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 

May I be permitted to add some other points, which seem to me of 
the first importance. It has been clear h^ shown in the discussion of 
statehood propositions before 3^onr committee that the possibility of 
holding the bulk of the real estate in the Indian Territor}^ exempt from 
taxation is a most serious difficulty in the wa}' of any proposed solution 
of the matter. The restrictive regulations are calculated, and are 
meant to be calculated, to dela}^ and prevent such alienations of surplus 
allotments as would make them taxable. This is done with the laud- 
able desire of preserving to the Indian as long as possible the property 
which is now being made his individual possession. I think it can be 
demonstrated most conclusively that instead of saving his property to 
the Indian these restrictive regulations will have exactl}^ the opposite 
effect. I have had a careful anah^sis made of the sales under the regu- 
lations of the Secretar}^ of the Interior from Juh^ 27, 1903, when the 
first lands were listed for sale, up to the 15th of December, 1903. The 
following table shows the result of this analysis: 

Pieces of land listed for sale 568 

Pieces of land offered by the Indian Agent 299 

Pieces of land upon which bids- were made 203 

Pieces of land not appraised 64 

Pieces of land on which no bid was made 32 

Pieces of land on which all bids were below appraisement 41 

Sales rejected by allottees, about 12 

Bids rejected for technical reasons 4 

Total number of pieces sold 150 

Average high bids per acre $12. 27 

Average actual selling price per acre |14. 66 

Number of deeds forwarded to Secretary of Interior 55 

Number of deeds returned approved 7 

With this amount of business accomplished since the act of February, 
1901, authorizing the sales, are not the people of the Indian Territor}^ 
excusable if the}^ are beginning to be somewhat impatient, and in 
feeling that the present regulations do not succeed in enabling allot- 
tees who are anxious to sell their surplus lands to do so as rapidl}^ as is 
necessary under the stress of present conditions? An examination 
of the sales also shows conclusively that the bidding is largel}" specula- 
tive. Out of less than 700 bids, 177 were made by 55 persons, an 
average of nearly nine bids each. Six have bid on upward of 20 pieces 
each; and one on 52 pieces. Up to the present time, with about 215 
sales made, I am reliably informed that at least 220 have been made to 
men in the land business. Thus there is ever}' evidence that the regu- 
lations are not tending to secure a class of small proprietors who will 
work their own farms, but that it is developing an ownership which 
will probabl}^ fix a renting class in the country for years to come, and 
make its taxing and its development in other respects the more difficult. 

The utmost that existing regulations could accomplish for the 
Indian would be to give him the chance to get in immediate cash the 
highest price for his land. Whether it is desirable to place the entire 
cash proceeds of the sale of his property in the hands of the man who 
is considered incompetent to manage the sale of that propert}^ himself , 
may well be questioned. However this may be, the object is cer- 
tainly not being accomplished, for so far onh^ one full-blood Indian 
has listed his land for sale, and only about 2 per cent of the pieces 
sold have been the propert}^ of Indian citizens by blood.- That is 
to say, that 98 per cent of the sales thus far made, with so much dela}" 
and expense, have been for persons who do not have and who not 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 279 

claim to have one drop of Indian blood. One- third of the Indian citi- 
zenship of the Creek Nation is in this condition, and nearl}^ one-third 
of the tribal citizenship of the whole Indian Territor}^ is also abso- 
luteh^ without Indian blood. These people, b}^ treaty or b}^ adoption, 
are enjoying all the rights, privileges, and immunities of Indians. Is 
there an}^ good reason w^h}^, with all these advantages, they should be 
further allowed to retard the development of the Indian Territory b}^ 
holding the bulk of its land exempt from taxation ? 

The most serious feature, how^ever, of the situation is, that it is 
doing preciseh" the opposite from w^hat was intended for the full-blood 
Indian. These restrictive regulations will only be in force for a few 
3^ears longer. The whole period during which sales might alone be 
made with the approval of the Secretar}^ of the Interior was live 3^ears 
from August, 1902. So that in a little over three years the restric- 
tions will be removed. The character of the full-blood Indian is such 
that he is very slow toapplv to the courts either to dispose of his land 
or to protect him in holding it. It is known that a large number have 
absolutely refused even to appl}^ for their allotments. The Indian is 
not likely to sell his land to strangers. Many Indians have taken their 
allotments in remote and undesirable localities where there will be 
little effort made to induce them to relinquish any part of their hold- 
ings. But for those who have desirable lands, there is a very immi- 
nent danger. 

The half-breed, or practically^ white Indian, knowing the conditions 
as to the land and the people, can very easity induce the full-blood 
Indians to borrow enough monej^ to carry them along for the few 
years remaining until the restrictions are removed. Then there will 
be a settlement and the Indian's land w411 be gone at the same time 
that he ceases to receive the supplies upon which he has learned to 
depend. Thus, it seems to me, that unless some wiser steps are taken it 
is inevitable that just as soon as the protecting arm of the Federal Gov- 
ernment is taken from the Indians many of them will immediately be 
in a condition of pauperism. Thus the ver}^ steps taken to protect 
the Indian are going to be his worst undoing. Not only is this the 
case, but his being made to stand in the position of one wdio is block- 
ing the w-ay of progress, w^ho is increasing the difficulties and burdens 
of his white fellows-citizens, and who is the recipient of special privi- 
leges is tending to develop and increase an irritation against him which 
is most unfortunate and which will make his entrance into our com- 
mon citizenship a most painful and difficult one. 

According to the best authenticated statistics available there are in 
the Indian Territor}^ at the present time upward of 600,000. Of these 
about 85,000 are citizens of the Indian tribes. Twent}^ thousand are 
negroes. About 5,000 are white men. About 8,000 are full bloods, 
or more than three-fourths Indian. And about 50,000 are of mixed 
blood — ver}^ man}^ of them practically white. These figures are taken 
from a report of the Daw^es Commission. Thus less than 10 per cent 
of the so-called Indian population is in any real sense Indian. The 
remainder are just as well able to assume the duties and responsibili- 
ties, as well as the privileges of American citizenship, as any white 
man. 

I think with these facts before 3SOU it must be plain that should it 
be found impracticable to give to the allottees a fee-simple title to all 
their allotments outside of the homestead they should at least be 



280 STATEHOOD FOE OKLAHOMA. 

placed where they can naturally and easily sell the surplus allotments 
if they desire to do so, and thus bring a large part of the lands in the 
Indian Territory into a condition in which it is subject to taxation. 
This will also have the effect, in my judgment and in that of many of 
our best business men, of encouraging the settlement of small farmers 
from the North and East upon lands which they can own. 

There is nothing better that we can do for the full-blood Indian now 
than to try and secure him the best class of neighbors. Instead of 
this, the present conditions are insuring his having the worst. Our 
history in the past has shown that where once the distinction is estab- 
lished between the Indian and their white fellow-citizens it is very 
hard to remove. A distinguished Indian said to me recently, " Every 
special privilege which you give to the Indian because he is an Indian 
tends to degrade him and to make him despised and hated." There is 
a great opportunity to bring a large number of people of Indian blood 
in the Indian Territory into our common citizenship on terms which 
will make them practicall}^ the equals of their fellow citizens. May I 
express the very earnest hope that in whatever legislation may be 
devised in the matter of statehood, provisions shall be made to secure 
for the Indian a normal citizenship and to prevent his being placed 
again in the position of a dependent and irresponsible people. In my 
judgment one of the most important means of accomplishing this is to 
secure practically the same title and the same conditions of landhold- 
ing for him as other citizens enjoy. Without this, even the simplest 
provision for such necessaries of American civilization as public 
schools, roads, asylums, etc., will be exceedingly difficult, if not 
impossible, to secure. 

FITNESS OF INDIAN CITIZENS FOR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP. 

The following list, furnished from official sources, may be interest- 
ing as illustrating the fitness of Indians by blood for managing their 
own affairs: 

Regularly licensed physicians and surgeons of Indian blood in the Indian Territory. — 
Dr. Claude A. Thompson, Muscogee; Dr. J. C. Bushyhead, Claremore; Dr. F. S. 
Clinton, Tulsa; Dr. Charles Eoss, Tahlequah; Dr. A. N. Wright, Olney; Dr. B. F. 
Maxwell, Braggs; Dr. J. R. Dawson, Afton; Dr. A. W. Foreman, Vinita; Dr. I. D. 
Hitchcock, Afton; Dr. J. O' Callahan, Muscogee; Dr. Wade Vann, Webbers Falls; 
Dr. N. K. Thompson, Muscogee; Dr. Frank Duckworth, Claremore; Dr. J. M. 
Thompson, Tahlequah; Dr. Walter Haley, Wilburton; Dr. 0. Rogers, Fort Gibson; 
Dr. Emmett Star, Chelsea; Dr. I. Cobb, Wagoner; Dr. Charles Harris, Muscogee; 
Dr. Thomas Scott, Tahlequah; Dr. G. W. Haskins, Colgate. 

Regular attorneys, members of the Five Civilized Tribes. — W. D. Bruton, Muldrow; 
Frank J. Boudinot, Fort Gibson; George W. Benge, Tahlequah; Geo. F. Burris, 
Tishomingo; W. W. Hastings, Tahlequah; Joseph Matubby, Tishomingo; Wm. H. 
Murray, Tishomingo; Wm. Harrison, South McAlester; Samuel F. Parks, Vinita; 
Jos. G. Ralls, Atoka; Wm. P. Thompson, Vinita; W. W. Breedlaugh, Muldrow; 
Lucien B. Bell, Vinita; W. F. Bourland, Tishomingo; Jas. S. Davenport, Vinita; 
Solomon J. Homer, Caddo; H. L. Muldrow, Tishomingo; D. C. McCurtain, South 
McAlester; C. Macintosh, Checota; Ridge Paschal, Tahlequah; JohnC. Starr, Vinita. 

It may be added to this that the overwhelming majority of teacbers 
and a very large number of ministers in the Indian Territory are Indian 
citizens. In one presbytery alone over one-third of the Presby- 
terian ministers have Indian blood and five of them ministers to 
English-speaking congregations. One of these has charge of the 
largest Presbyterian church in the Indian Territory. There are many 
Indian citizens in the ministry of the other denominations. 



STATEHOOD FOR OKLAHOMA. 281 

To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress 

assembled: 

We, the undersigned ministers of the gospel of Indian Territory, humbly and 
respectfully represent that the present statutes of the United States forbidding the 
alienation of lands in the Indian Territory, excei^t with the approval of the Interior 
Department, has been proven by actual experience to be most injurious to the inter- 
ests of the allottees of this country as well as to the citizens of the United States here 
resident. 

The allottees, in many instances relying upon the sale of a portion of their land, 
have incurred indebtedness which is exercising a crushing effect upon them. Prac- 
tically, the law authorizing them to sell a portion of their surplus has proven to be a 
mockery, as the rules are so complicated and difficult of observance that the sale of 
any substantial piece of land is impossible. The actual settlers have been prevented 
acquiring property here under the law, and very large amounts of money sent to this 
country for investment have been withdrawn. This has resulted most injuriously to 
every interest, including the building of churches and the maintenance of church 
schools. 

We honor the motive w^hich has inspired the Government, believing that the pur- 
pose was to defend the incompetent Indian. It is very natural to suppose that Indian 
Territory is full of Indians and that the Indian is an uncivilized and unenlightened 
man. This is far from being true. Even the full-blood Indians of Indian Territory 
have had school advantages for half a century. Many of them are educated, and 
because of their experience, a great body of them are intelligent people, all having 
been self-supporting all of their lives, without aid from the Government. There is 
probably not over 15 or 20 per cent among the allottees who could be called full 
iDloods, and a great body of the allottees of Indian Territory are as intelligent as the 
people of the States surrounding this country. They are as competent to handle and 
transact their own business. The idea that the Indian citizen is an innocent victim 
of the rapacity and craft of the white race in Indian Territory is ludicrous to those 
familiar with both classes. It is practically impossible to tell the allottees on the 
street from those who are not allottees; their attire, manner, speech, habit, educa- 
tion, and abilities are substantially the same. 

We humbly represent that it is for the better interest of the allottee as well as for 
the interest of every civilized agency in Indian Territory that the same freedom of 
transacting business should prevail in this country as in the other States of the Union. 

With sentiments of profound respect, we have the honor to be 
Your humble and obedient servants, 

J. A. Ogle, J. R. Eowell, C. H. Mavfield, T. A. Brvant, D. N. Allen. 
J. W. Brown, N. B. Fizer, G. Lee Phelps, I. t. Crenshaw, L. P. 
Hamilton, I. M. Carter, R. C. Cummings, W. M. Tucker, W. W. 
Nation, S. L. Ferrier, J. C. Baird, Merchant S. Riddle, John S. Mains, 
J. C. Atchley, William Clapham, W. N. Xolan, N. G. Smith. 



LB S '05 










': .\^ 






<' 






x.<^ 





















.^^.. 












% -o 



<="c^.^^-: 



"^^^^ " ^ 



/\" 









aV 



> <f^ 



'-> 



O >!' 



,-!>''' 



,0^ . 






^■i% = 




° i>"\; 









,.'^ 



>. 



t-^^' "^^ 



